The Emerging Threat of Postmodernism in the Church in South Africa

New book: 'The way of Balaam' - How the Emerging Church links to Gnosticism

2012-02-02T01:03:00.000-08:00

The Way of Balaam: False teachers and the re-appearance of ancient Gnostic beliefs

Why do some Christians pray to God as ‘mother’? Why do some Christians use labyrinths and mandalas? Why do some believe that different religions are all part of ‘one truth’? What do actively homosexual Bishops have in common with militant feminism, ‘interfaith’ worship, and the watering down of core doctrines of the faith? Are these trends mere signs of an aberrant but harmless spirituality or are they sinister and toxic to orthodox Christian faith and practice?

It has been said that Christian orthodoxy (correct belief and behaviour) is never more than one generation from extinction. In other words, as is emphasized many times in the New Testament, we must be on our guard against false teaching. This is because false teaching is a poison to the Christian Church. It undermines the true Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, thereby bringing spiritual death to people in need of salvation. It subverts the truth revealed to us, and promotes ‘the lie’ – thereby colluding with the ‘father of lies’ himself.

Not least, false teaching brings the judgement of God upon Churches who allow it. I believe that the precipitous decline over the last 40 or 50 years in many of the Protestant denominations of North America and Britain is the direct result of the infiltration of unbiblical and in some cases outright heretical teachings. As an example, the Anglican Church of Canada declined 75% in attendance figures from 1961 to 2009; this is a church which embraces the belief that homosexual unions are good and normal, and perform ceremonies blessing them.

But what are these false teachings, and how do we recognize them? This is the main concern of my book, and I have tried to write it in language that everyone will understand. The issues are complex, but I believe they can be set out in a way that clarifies them. We need to know how to counter these false doctrines – it is not enough to quote a verse or two of the bible (correct though it is to base our responses on the Word) , we need to have a thorough and sound doctrinal understanding of what the Bible teaches.

Readers will perhaps have a question mark in their minds as to what Gnostic belief is and what it has to do with Christians today. As I explain in the book, Gnostic sects were among the first groups to twist the Christian gospel – they had a huge influence and led many astray into darkness in the times of the early church. They were groups that mixed Christian belief with the pagan religions of the Roman Empire, and eastern philosophies. Their teachings have reappeared from time to time in the history of the Christian church, but are reasserting their influence in our day and age, especially because of the impact of eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism in the West. They are subtle and once again will deceive many – but they can be recognized, and they can be countered.

The book chapter headings give an idea of the book contents, and so I list them below:

Introduction: The Way of Balaam and the implosion of the Western Church
1. The Quest.
2. Enter the goddess.
3. Gnostic Doctrines I: The primacy of experience; the nature of humankind; the problem with the world; the person of Jesus; the place of Holy Scripture.
4. Gnostic Doctrines II: Salvation through altered consciousness; the Resurrection; Mysteries that transform; Time and History.
5. The Coming Chaos.
6. Called to shine as lights in the darkness.

Many of the examples that I use in the book are taken from events that are occurring in mainline denominations, such as Anglican, Baptist, Reformed and Lutheran churches. However these false teachings are beginning to infiltrate large Free Evangelical and Charismatic/Pentecostal churches through the very influential leaders of the “Emergent Church” movement. Western culture has long abandoned its mooring in Christian thought and belief and the effect of this will be felt not only in North America, Britain and Europe, but throughout the world. Many prominent and respected Christian thinkers are warning us that we face the rise of a new world order that is totally pagan in its foundations and which will threaten the Christian Church in a way that has not been seen since the days of the Roman Empire. Not only is this new world order post- Christian, it is anti-Christian. Frederick Baue the Lutheran theologian tells us that what is coming is “a phase of western or world civilization that is innately religious but hostile to Christianity....or worse, a dominant but false church that brings all of its forces to bear against the truth of God’s Word”. If we are not prepared, if we do equip ourselves by seeking a deeper understanding of Christian truth and a deeper knowledge of our faith, we will be swept away by what is coming on the world. I hope that my book will go some way in helping people to gain that deeper understanding and so stand strong and be able to offer a sound and clear defence of their faith.

I believe that the Christian church today as never before needs believers that love the Lord Jesus and are committed to standing for the truth. My prayer is that my book will ignite a spark of renewed passion for the Lord among believers and a clearer understanding of His glorious Gospel.

“The Way of Balaam” is available from the following Bookshops:

Christian Connexion
and
Christian Book Discounters,

Or directly from the author: davedoveton@gmail.com price R120 + R10 postage

Rev Dave Doveton is an Anglican Priest, and serves in the Diocese of Port Elizabeth. He is the rector of the parishes of St Barnabas and St Philips, and also serves as the Anglican Dean of Studies of Stellenbosch Theological Seminary.

COMBATING THE ‘RIGHT’ AND ‘LEFT WINGS’ OF CHURCH COMPROMISE

2011-10-13T10:23:00.000-07:00

COMBATING THE ‘RIGHT’ AND ‘LEFT WINGS’ OF CHURCH COMPROMISE

Every now and then it is worth ‘zooming out’ and taking a wide lens perspective on what is happening to the church. The reality is that we are in the midst of a large scale international spiritual ‘down grade’. The culture is like a river flowing in full flood downstream. Unless one decides to actively swim upstream against the current, you, your family and your church will be swept along by it. In this context, all of us have to make the decision that Joshua did JOS 24:15 “But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.". Further than that, we must be prepared to pay the price to stay faithful to the Lord – if that means, moving church, job, country, school or whatever.

Historically, spiritual downgrades have followed a pattern ‘Revival turns to passive spirituality to compromised spirituality to liberal unbelief (church without faith) and then if not reversed to extinction (abandonment of faith and church). I hear lots of talk about revival, but I don’t know any church in South Africa with a spiritual state anywhere close to revival. The best churches are mostly at ‘passive spirituality’ stage. In other words, they believe the truth, but the lost are not hearing it from many in the church. Most professing evangelical churches are compromised with their ‘idols’. Numerous churches that twenty years ago were at passive stage have moved to liberalism and man made religion. In another generation, such liberal churches will probably close their doors – as they have in Europe already.

THE ‘RIGHT’ AND ‘LEFT’ WINGS OF COMPROMISE

There are two main forces pulling evangelical churches into compromise. To simplify things, one could call them ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing’.

RIGHT WING churches tend to be authoritarian, inward focused and centred around powerful charismatic personalities, and focused on building empires, ‘brands’, or tribes around those personalities. They are elitist, hierarchical although they would usually strongly deny this and in their extreme form, the top leader becomes a substitute for God – making decisions for unthinking followers – who profess to be biblical, but rely entirely on their leader to tell them what is biblical. The kingdom of God is substituted by the religious empire of the leader. Other Christian groups are treated as inferior and there is a desire to dominate them. Such empires will put on the best show on Sunday, but behind the scenes, they will bully, compromise and cover up sin to advance their fascist power structure. Anyone who questions anything is pushed out. Their beliefs vary dramatically, but all such groups are convinced their hierarchy are totally and unquestionably right – even if they change their beliefs over time. Usually there is some distinctive belief making them much more right than everyone else.

They do not follow a biblical pattern of governance and accountability. Usually, leaders of such groups don’t participate in unity initiatives unless they can see a benefit to gain power for themselves – and generally don’t care too much what the rest of the world thinks of them. Every now and then, some top leader goes too far and is exposed in a scandal. But usually, the successor continues a similar elitist pattern. Younger movements are prone to fall into this ‘right wing’ pattern’. More on ‘right wing’ churches problems at www.voiceofreform.blogspot.com

LEFT WING churches on the other hand tend to be desperate to get the approval of the surrounding culture. They will do whatever they can to get the approval of this culture in the mistaken belief that this will somehow help them to make Christianity attractive to the lost. Currently, the worldly culture is postmodern and so, such churches tend to be importing Postmodern culture into the church. Such churches tend to be much lower energy, laid back types without a controlling central leader. More on ‘left wing’ churches problems at www.emergingthreat.blogspot.com

Both ‘left’ and ‘right wing’ forms of compromise are a form of idolatry. Just different forms of idolatry. Churches all over are bleeding off the evangelical mainstream in one of these two unhealthy directions. But our focus should be on God, his glory and his kingdom – neither on the ‘right wing’ of great Christian leaders and movements or on the ‘left wing’ of the surrounding neo-pagan postmodern culture. In many ways, these ‘right’ and ‘left’ wings of evangelicalism have similar characteristics to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ wings of political movements – where the right is associated with nationalism, tribalism and populist leaders and the left is associated with unbounded liberty. But they do not necessarily support such right or left wing political movements.

WHAT IS GOD LIKELY TO DO?

People don’t realize how serious the backsliding is and that God will judge it. In the past, when such periods of backsliding have happened, God has preserved a remnant of faithful people – who have often gone into exile. For example, in the 16th century, during the persecution of Mary Tudor in England where 300 evangelical leaders were burned at the stake, a church of English exiles gathered in Geneva under the leadership of John Knox. When religious freedom returned to England, they went back and seeded the Puritan revival. The same happened again a century later, during the English state church persecution of dissenters. One dissenting church fled to Holland under the leadership of John Smyth. When Smyth turned to believers baptism, the church split. One half went and founded America at Plymouth Plantation. The other half, returned to England and spawned the Baptist church revival movement. During the liberal downgrade in the early 20th century, Gresham Machen left Princeton Seminary and founded Westminster Seminary, which subsequently became a centre for the spread of Biblical worldview throughout the world. In such ways, God has usually formed a ‘Noah’s Ark’ to preserve the faithful few who will spawn the next revival or reformation move of God. The lesson we must learn is the extreme importance of faithfulness at any cost under persecution even if the faithful look very weak in exile – one day, God may use these weak few to re-seed the church in the whole nation with godly influence.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

* We must be prepared to pay the price to be faithful, whatever that is. Jesus warned us the cost of following him and in evil times we will be forced to surrender all to follow him.
* We must choose who we mix with carefully. Especially our pastors and leaders. Likewise who our children mix with. We are social animals and we mustn’t fool ourselves into thinking we can endlessly fend off temptations of social pressure.
* Put in safe boundaries against temptation.
* We must be careful not to let our love grow cold due to the increase of wickedness (Revelation 2; Matthew 24:12-13).
* Don’t be deceived by the substitute religiosity of the ‘right’ and ‘left’ wing.
* If you see your church falling for the ‘right wing’ or the ‘left wing’ errors, do what you can to steer it back to the central focus on God and his kingdom. If you can’t, then move to a church which is focused on God.
* Realise that we cannot expect the same type of ministry fruit during backslidden times as in revival times, but continue to be faithful and focus on the different roles required in such times – (such as the example of Elijah and Jeremiah – rather than Joshua).
* Remember the message of the scriptures and of history, that God does revive – continue to pray faithfully year after year and make ourselves available to God.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SENTIMENTALITY TRUMPS TRUTH?

2011-10-04T04:53:00.000-07:00

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SENTIMENTALITY TRUMPS TRUTH?

As most Western churches slide deeper and deeper into postmodern thinking, more and more decisions are based on sentimentalism rather than truth - gradually this affects all aspects of church life. Officially, such evangelicals claim to believe what biblical Christians have always believed, except that when decisions are made feelings and relationships are put before objective truth. Trying to argue from the Bible with such people is very difficult because they will always affirm the Bible, but in practice feelings come first - before God and the Bible. Most of the time, they just ignore the Bible and statements of belief and follow their feelings and personal relationships. It is quite easy for anyone including me and you to make such a mistake, but increasingly this is becoming the norm rather than the exception - by people who really should know better. Let us consider some real examples.

* DIVORCE COUNSELLING: A wife comes to a pastor at a well known evangelical church and complains about all the faults of her husband, saying she wants divorce. She gets his sympathy. Then they have counselling as a couple. The husband says positive things about his wife. Officially, this church opposes divorce except where there is adultery (which was not the case). Nevertheless, instead of quoting the Bible or repeating the official position of the church on divorce, the pastor just gives relationship counselling - sympathising with the wife who talked to him first. Eventually the wife does divorce her husband and the pastor fails to speak up against it.

* HOMOSEXUALITY COUNSELLING: A generally mixed up young lesbian comes to a church counsellor for help. Instead of using the Bible to challenge the girl to repent of her sexual sin and to change, the counsellor just listens and affirms her (in accordance with the methods mostly taught at universities). The lesbian has found some clever arguments twisting the Bible to defend homosexuality on the internet and repeats these to the counsellor. Instead of saying that this is error, the counsellor just tells the girl how clever she is. When challenged, the counsellor claims she is opposed to homosexuality. Nevertheless, it is emotional feelings and not the Bible which come out in the counselling.

* CHURCH DISCIPLINE: A senior pastor commits adultery. He pleads for mercy and argues that public exposure will damage his marriage. His associate pastors, ignoring the Bible's standards on eldership and procedures for disciplining leaders (1 Timothy 5:20), feel sorry for him and decide not to inform the congregation. They give him private marriage counselling instead. Those doing the discipline ignore the Word of God and the numerous sheep who will be harmed by the ungodly pastor. They are blinded by personal relationship and feelings for the one they are close to. He does it again and the church backslides.

* DOCTRINAL DISPUTES:
- A false teacher, Graeme Codrington publishes an article teaching the heresy that it is acceptable for a Christian to practice homosexuality. Biblical Baptists strongly speak up against this. The denomination condemns the false teaching and takes steps to ensure such views are not published again. Nevertheless, postmodern pastors say they disagree with the false teaching but instead of speaking up against it, they attack the Biblical Christians saying that they have hurt the feelings of the false teacher and those who published the false teaching.
- This is also what happened when postmodernist Rob Bell published his infamous book on hell 'Love Wins', claiming that everyone would get a second change to go to heaven after death. Bell argues from sentimentality that God would never do something so nasty as send someone to eternal punishment. Brian McLaren doesn't defend Rob Bells logic, but just continues the sentimental argument that Rob Bell is his friend and that he has a duty to protect his friend and tries to throw doubt on the logical arguments of Albert Mohler against this.

* WHISTLEBLOWING A SCANDAL: There is a scandal in a church. Someone attempts to bring the truth to the congregation following Matthew 18 process. Nevertheless, the church authorities, re-frame the scandal as a personal relational issue. They ignore the scandal and say that the whistleblower must now reconcile with those he is exposing. When the whistleblower continues to blow the whistle, he is victimised for failing to reconciled.

* LEWDNESS: A professing Christian publishes a lewd photograph on the internet. A Biblical Christian asks him to remove it. A postmodern pastor, instead of supporting the biblical Christian and telling the publisher that this was wrong, instead complains that the Biblical Christian has now caused emotional upset and harmed relationship. Thus by this new feelings-based interpretation, the pro-moral person is the one mostly in the wrong.

* ABORTION: Instead of considering issues like the teaching of the Bible and the Sanctity of human life as it relates to abortion, postmodern Christians look at it from a feelings angle. They don't know the feelings of the unborn child - so that is ignored. They consider the feelings of the woman with an unwanted pregnancy and the feelings of the secular media. From this angle, pro-life protesters are hurting the feelings of women who have had abortions or are considering killing their babies. Do they win the fight on grounds of logic? No. On logic they would lose, but on sentimentality - the person who is seen trumps the person who is unseen. Given the sentimental thinking of the public, pro-lifers respond by trying to profile cute pictures of the unborn in the womb - to pull back some public sympathy - or use harsh pictures of aborted babies. Then they are attacked by the other side for being too harsh. Nevertheless, logic, truth and the Bible have been thrown to the wind and sidelined out of the debate.

A slogan used to promote this attitude is 'Follow your heart and not your head'. It is not in the Bible. Its plain foolish and unbiblical. The Bible says that the heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9).

And one could give a hundred more examples following the same pattern. If your church is not very focused on Biblical truth, probably you will also find this kind of thing going on behind the scenes.

The problem with all of these examples is that the people just evade argument based on truth and the Bible as a standard for truth - while concentrating on feelings and immediate personal relationships. The result is favouritism (forbidden by James 2), where there is no objective justice or investigation of the truth. Those who have personal relationships with powerful people are favoured and those who don't lose out. The Bible is sidelined in favour of personal feelings.

This is not a minor trend or the action of a few postmodernist extremists. Most of the evangelical church has already gone this way, even if it is officially still evangelical. Only a minority are resisting it.

Really such an approach does not help personal emotions or relationships except in the very short term. In the long term, relationships and feelings are trashed on a large scale due to ignoring the teaching of the Bible, God's judgement and the natural result of cause and effect.

WORLD WAR TWO IS DIFFERENT

To win a war, one has to recognise the tactics being used by the enemy. After World War One, which was fought mostly in trenches, France prepared a line of defences against a future similar war. There never was another similar war. World War Two was different. Armoured tanks over-ran Frances Maginot Line defences in days. They were useless. In the same way, the battle for the Bible has changed. We cannot fight it the way it was fought in the last generation. We will lose if we try. We have to see the opposition is using different tactics. So many are claiming to be biblical Christians, while they are actually 'feelings-based' rather than 'Bible-based'. We have to recognise these tactics, recognise the enemy pretending to be biblical, expose them and fight back.

Postmodernists are mostly refusing to engage in logical debate based on the Bible. When cornered as obviously unbiblical, they just argue the other side is causing relational and emotional pain. The reality is that the fight for truth always has and always will cause pain. We can try our best to minimise this, but unless we want to just give up and lose the fight, there will always be pain in such conflicts.

'Feelings-based' Christians leaders who claim to be biblical need to be steered back to the Bible. Those who won't change need to be weeded out of Christian leadership. Lets remind people to follow the Bible first and feelings after that.

SHOULD CHRISTIANS COPY OUR CULTURE OF CRUDENESS?

2011-09-01T07:16:00.001-07:00

SHOULD CHRISTIANS COPY OUR CULTURE OF CRUDENESS?

Throughout the Western world since about the 1950s our culture has been getting progressively cruder. There used to be certain subjects, images and words which most people thought were unacceptable in public. What used to be found only in seedy magazines now appears on billboard advertising. In the old days, if a broadcaster swore on air, he would be fired immediately. There were always people who crossed such boundaries, but in polite company among professionals and especially in the church, certain things were out of bounds. If such things were ever spoken about or seen it would be in the context of the utmost care and caution.

The ‘Emerging Church’ is an attempt by Christian leaders to respond to our ‘Emerging Culture’, mostly by adapting Christianity to fit in with the direction of popular culture. There are different streams within this movement. One stream has focused on trying to accommodate Postmodern ideas. Another stream of the Emerging Church, calling itself ‘Emerging, but not Emergent’ however rejects Postmodernism as doctrinally unorthodox, but often follows the cultural trend towards crudeness.

Many Christians will at times say something, they realise later was a mistake, and may utter some embarrassed apology ‘I shouldn’t have said that’. But these Christian leaders are not embarrassed. Instead they have an idea that to be coarse is to be cool. That somehow they can win over today’s youth, if they can swear like them, talk about the same coarse movies and immoral actors they watch, and tell almost as crude jokes. They think those who disagree with such coarseness are legalistic and old fashioned. Some of these leaders come from overly strict ‘fundamentalist’ backgrounds and have taken a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. Other younger pastors have grown up with a crude culture and think it is acceptable for a Christian.

This ‘crude’ attitude then filters into all aspects of church life: trampling on what was formerly considered ‘holy ground’. Jokes and flippant statements about God and sexuality become acceptable in church. For example, a preacher thinks that if his congregation is a bit asleep, he can wake them up by cracking some joke with sexual undertones, making fun of spiritual things or using language formerly considered unacceptable in polite company.

LOWERING STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE SEEKERS

Unconverted persons slip into church, telling crude jokes or behaving in a crude manner – but instead of being urged to holiness, the hyper ‘seeker sensitive’ evangelism strategy believes one needs to lower the standards in the church to accommodate such people. Particularly, in youth groups, unconverted people are welcomed in without needing to adapt to even outward Christian standards of holiness. This then lowers the standard of what acceptable for Christian youth as well. This is a very risky and unbiblical strategy of evangelism, more likely to corrupt the church than win sinners to Christ. Rather unbelievers should be attracted by young people charged with zeal for Christ and the message of the gospel.

JOKING ABOUT SEX IN CHURCH

While just about every glossy magazine offers ‘sex advice’, some pastors think they can sell Christianity by offering competing ‘sex advice’. While there may be some teaching on sex in the scriptures, this is usually given in very guarded and euphemistic language, for example 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. There are many good reasons for this. Sex is a sacred subject meant for the privacy of the marriage bedroom. Churches have a lot of unmarried people. Inappropriate talk on sex can provoke illegitimate desire. Keeping sex special means not talking about it everywhere else. Some other young ‘postmodern’ preachers don’t joke, but try to shock their congregations by using crude or sexually explicit words in church, which maybe make them seem more ‘hip with the culture’ than their young followers.

Related to such flippancy about sexuality with words is a casual attitude towards modesty with the body. Many youth part of this new church culture simply don’t see a problem with viewing nudity on television or movies – nor in this state of numbness about immodesty - with lewdly exposing themselves even when members of the opposite sex may see them. Please see my previous article on ‘nudity’ for a rebuttal of this view. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianview/message/452

WHEN JOKING STRAYS INTO BLASPHEMY

Similarly, jokes about God and spiritual things in church can easily stray into blasphemy. We are meant to reverence God – not make jokes about him. Granted, there may be a few ‘spiritual jokes’ which are legitimate, but one needs to be careful that such joking does not undermine the gravity of spiritual truth such as people’s eternal destiny in heaven or hell, the moral boundaries of sin or the person of God. People who make such jokes need to be very careful that they are not offending God in the process. But the new attitude is as though God doesn’t care, isn’t going to get offended and that any caution is equated to legalism. God can judge a church that doesn’t respect him in many ways, and the most common way is that the Holy Spirit simply withdraws.

FOOLISH SEXUAL ADVICE IN CHURCH

One of the worlds most listened to preachers, considered an expert on reaching ‘youth culture’, is offering sexual advice on the internet – with the apparent philosophy that just about anything is permitted provided it is within marriage. And this crude and foolish advice on sexual experimentation in marriage is videoed in the context of an open church meeting. His web site links to other sites offering even more unwise sex advice.

WHY SHOULD WE AVOID JOKING ABOUT SOME THINGS?

The Bible says we should avoid coarseness: Ephesians 5:3 “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” Yes, we can joke and be funny and tell jokes about all sorts of common things, but we should be careful not to joke about the holy and the unclean. The holy we are to respect and seek after. The unclean we are to detest, avoid and not dwell on. Neither the holy nor the unclean should be the subject of jokes.

Joking is often a way people break down barriers. In many contexts that is good and helpful. But we need some barriers. When people joke about sin, they undermine barriers to sin. When people joke about homosexuality or people having affairs, they increase the risks of such sin – and joking often provides a cover for the initial stages of sinful relationships.

While under the New Covenant we do have access to God through a new and living way Jesus has opened for us (Hebrews 10:20), God has provided a very specific route for us to meet with him – through identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus, by various means such as participation in holy communion, repentance of our specific sins and faith in his forgiveness and cleansing by his blood. That specific route does not mean that people who are unrepentant towards their sin and irreverent towards God can simply joke their way into intimacy with God. Such people deceive themselves. God is not meeting them at church.

In the past there was a debate on dress code at church. Some older folk thought you needed to wear a tie to church to show you respected God. This focus on externals is not relevant to worship unless it actually does reflect the attitude of the heart. But the words people say do let out what is in the heart (Matthew 12:34) and a coarse attitude towards sexuality, sin and the holy things of God does not reflect a right heart attitude.

WHY IS THIS TREND DANGEROUS?

* The Bible promotes modesty which applies to the display of our physical bodies and our wealth (1 Corinthians 12:22; 1 Timothy 2:9)

* The Bible gives numerous examples of people who fell under divine judgment for failing to show adequate respect to God in worship. Nathan and Abihu, priest (Numbers 3:4) and Uzzah (1 Chronicles 13:9) were struck dead. King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:19) was struck with a skin disease. These are lessons we should learn from not to do the same.

* Our Hollywood popular over-sexed and blasphemous media culture is seriously toxic to Christian holiness. We should not try to reintroduce the legalism of ‘all movies are of the devil’, but we must use wisdom in managing our exposure to toxic entertainment and sin – otherwise it will numb our boundaries. Pastors who feel they need to keep up with such popular toxic entertainment culture, put themselves at risk and also those who follow them.

* All historic revivals have taken place in the context of conviction of sin, fear and reverence for God and acknowledging the difference between the holy and the unclean. None have ever taken place in the context of joking about sin and the holy things of God. Such compromise with crudeness may fill churches with young people who like it and think their pastor is ‘cool’, but we cannot expect true revival in churches where such an attitude prevails.

WHAT SHOULD I DO?

If you haven’t encountered this problem. Good. You are probably blessed by being in a healthy church. But if your church or people in it are following any of this new trend of crudeness, please show this article to such people as well as your pastor and home group leaders. If however, your church continues with this trend, you may consider moving elsewhere.

BROADENING THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF OUR WORSHIP LYRICS

2011-08-12T03:50:00.001-07:00

Please support ChristianView Network financially, www.ChristianView.givengain.org

================================

12 August 2011

BROADENING THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF OUR WORSHIP LYRICS

In the 1980s there was a revolution in church worship music unprecedented in 2000 years of church history. Prior to this date, worship song lyrics were almost all composed by pastors and the songs sung in church were selected by pastors. Martin Luther, for example, used song writing as a vehicle to promote reformation of the church and help people remember what he taught. But in the decades before the 1980s there had been a stagnation in worship music. Most churches were still mostly using songs with lyrics and tunes one or two hundred years old - as many also still used the King James Bible - which younger people had difficulty relating to. In the 1970s a few newer songs started drifting in along with the use of guitars instead of church organs - causing much controversy. One side thought guitars were of the devil, while some younger people felt the same about organs. In the 1980s, the old hymn books started to be thrown out and were replaced with up to date tunes and lyrics mostly composed by young musicians in their 20s with little theological training. Newer churches quickly embraced the change, while many older churches fought bitter 'worship wars' - sometimes having different services with different styles. By our decade most churches have made the shift to contemporary lyrics and tunes. Nevertheless, many complain we have lost something in the process. Most of the newer songs have a very narrow set of themes and lack the theological depth and breadth of the old hymns. Most focus on the personal emotional relationship of the worshipper with God. That is a valid Bible worship theme, but it is not the only valid Bible worship theme. The Psalms, our model for worship, have a much wider range of themes. At the same time, the Christian commercial music industry took control of church music. They promoted most whatever sold best rather than chosing songs for their scriptural educational quality as pastors tried to do before this. Young worship lyrics writers copied the styles of whatever sold best, producing more and more of the same narrow set of best selling popular themes. But are the Psalms popular themes? A lot of them are actually on very unpopular themes of repentance for sins of both individuals and the nation as a whole. Many are about the wrath of God and punishment of the wicked - not so popular today. But this is the spirtual food that people need, but are not always going to want to listen to as background music in their car. To their credit, some Christian musicians have taken old hymns and updated their tunes - creating a good combination of theological depth and popular style. The rising ideology of postmodernism has also favoured songs with a focus on personal emotional feelings for God and a neglect of other themes - such as the greatness of God and the wrath of God.

Why does this matter to Christian activism? Because worship music is an educator as much as preaching is an educator - and Christians with a narrow focus on emotional personal relationship with God will also likely have a narrow focus in their prayers and influence on society. Worship and service are indivisible. Service needs to flow out of our worship, just as Isaiah was motivated to preach an unpopular message to Israel (Isaiah 6) after a greater revelation of the holiness of God in worship.

In 1996, in frustration at the theological narrowness of the new worship lyrics, a group of the worlds most respected Bible scholars published "The Cambridge Declaration", calling for amongst other things a return to pastoral control of church music "Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music. As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness..."
http://www.theopedia.com/The_Cambridge_Declaration_of_the_Alliance_of_Confessing_Evangelicals

But some will say, most of these theologians are from a traditional Reformed camp. Nevertheless, Paul Yonggi Cho, pastor of the world's largest church in Korea, Pentecostal has expressed the same concern - and encouraged the singing of older hymns with modern songs to compensate their theological narrowness.

Unfortunately, the Christian music industry which controls most Christian music ignored this call - as did most pastors - who continued to surrender their authority over church worship lyrics to young mostly theologically uneducated church musicians who would thus attract youth to church. Christian radio tend to play songs based on popularity based on sales figures from the commercial music publishers and from listener requests rather than the need to select for theological breadth. Thus, the cultural update to worship music has continued and resulted in a theological narrowing and downgrade of worship music lyrics. Many of todays church youth only know the new lyric themes and don't know what they are missing.

For many years, Hugh Wetmore, a board member of ChristianView Network, former leader of the Evangelical Fellowship of South Africa has been emailing me worship songs he has composed on a broad range of themes. They have often been an encouragement and inspiration to me. Recently he has published these in a book "Lyrics to lift your life" which includes a very wide range of topics and theological depth. Each is indexed by topic. In addition to songs in the usual categories of the Life of Christ from His Incarnation to His Return and major Biblical Doctrines, less usual themes include: The Ten Commandments’, ‘Creation vs Evolution’, ‘Work’, ‘Protection while traveling internationally’, ‘Refugees’, ‘Herod’s Massacre of the Innocents’, ‘Xenophobia’, ‘21st Century Culture’ and ‘South African Context’. Songs about the human condition: ‘Loneliness’, ‘Stress’, ‘Poverty’ and ‘Hunger’ ~ in addition to the usual and necessary themes of ‘Lostness’ and ‘Repentance/Faith’, ‘The Church Growth Song”, “The Inside-Out Church”, “The Suffering Song” and “The Identity Song”.

"Lyrics to Lift your Life" is available (R80.00 + R8 pack+post) from the author-publisher, Hugh G Wetmore 109 Beacon Hill, 32 Roberts Rd, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa. Tel/Fax +27(0)33 3429012. email: wetmore@pixie.co.za. The songs are also available with musical score, as backing tracks and on audio mp3 CDs (as a set of 13 CDs). Why not order one for your church?

My hope is that some young talented musicians will take these broad and theologically deep lyrics and make them popular - and also follow Hugh's example in composing more worship songs of similar theological depth and breadth. An example of a song on a pro-life theme is given below - you can also sing it at your next pro-life protest against abortion and help save babies lives.

The 1980s church music revolution was good in that it brought a new generation of youth into the church with tunes they enjoyed, but problematic in that it narrowed the depth and breadth of their worship music and took authority over music away from pastors to the less biblically knowledgable young musicians and radio DJs. I don't want to slam the commercial Christian music industry. I appreciate them and my spiritual life has been hugely helped by commercially published music. I have a big collection of such music and listen to it all the time. We do however need to take action to broaden and deepen the theological content of and selection songs - and commercial popularity charts will not do that for us.

One of my personal worship solutions has been to rip my collection to mp3 and then create my own compilations of the best songs to listen to in my car, my private worship and on my mp3 player, which I believe include a more balanced selection. I also love the CDs with old hymns set to new tunes. So to the pastors out there - please don't be over awed by the popularity of certain music and by the greater musical ability of musicians in your congregation - the tunes are the musicians responsibility, but the choice of lyrics has a teaching function and thus is a pastoral responsibilty.

I would recommend also that every commercial music company and radio station employ a theologically educated pastor as a consultant to review their music lyric selection to ensure a breadth of theological themes. Possibly larger companies should have a theological review board to review the publishing selection and give feedback to songwriters. I would recommend every young songwriter who does not have a strong bible knowledge sends his songs for review to someone who does before publication. Let us promote a reformation of worship music to broaden the teaching content of music and put the selection of songs out of the hands of young musicians, commercial companies and young radio DJ's and back in the hands of pastors - who choose songs with lyrics to feed the flock a Biblically balanced diet.

And don't forget - Hugh Wetmore's "Lyrics to Lift your Life" song book is available (R80.00 + R8 pack+post) from the author-publisher, Hugh G Wetmore 109 Beacon Hill, 32 Roberts Rd, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa. Tel/Fax +27(0)33 3429012. email: wetmore@pixie.co.za.

Please forward this email to your pastor and music worship leader.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Rosenthal

---------------------------------

THE PRO-LIFE SONG

God of Justice, God of Love,
twin these virtues from above,
form them in this world below,
that all people soon will show
justice, love to all.

Justice for the innocent,
killed without their own consent,
taken from their mother’s womb,
taken from their cosy home,
justice is denied.

Love for helpless humankind,
all their rights now undermined.
Adult power is cruel and wild
When it’s used against a child ~
love evaporates.

God of Justice, God of Love,
You in Christ came from above.
Mary had the courage to
see her pregnancy right through ~
Loving Justice won!

Words: Hugh G Wetmore (c) 2003
Metre: 77775

================================

ChristianView Network
Tel/fax: +2721 6854500
Mobile: +2782 6768966
Email: mail@ChristianView.org
Mail: Postnet 114, P/Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa
Web: www.ChristianView.org
Donate: www.ChristianView.givengain.org

================================

THE NEW NIV AND XHOSA BIBLE: CAN WE STILL TRUST OUR FAVOURITE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS?

2011-04-21T05:11:00.001-07:00

21 April 2011

THE NEW NIV AND XHOSA BIBLE: CAN WE STILL TRUST OUR FAVOURITE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS?

This month, April 2011 both English and Xhosa speaking Christians face a crisis: Can we still trust our favourite Bible? Tomorrow, warehouses are set to release a revised 2011 translation of the popular New International Version.

Until this month, all Xhosa Bibles printed by the Bible society had a red edge. This morning, I watched a Xhosa man walk to the counter of a Christian bookshop and ask for a Bible. The shopkeeper offered him the new Xhosa Bible. He rejected it, asking for a red edged one. The shopkeeper showed him a red edged one to compare with - saying the two had the same text inside. The Xhosa man asked to buy the red one. When told it was not for sale, but only for comparison, the Xhosa man walked out of the shop. He trusted the red edged Bible he had always known and didn't trust the new plain one. The shopkeeper was angry with the Bible society at changing the rim colour, saying they had lost thousands of rands in sales this month.

We all want a Bible translation we can trust. Most of us are not Bible scholars, but we all want a translation we can both trust and understand. We want a translation that isn't biased with some particular groups theological opinion, but just simply translates what it says in the original. That was the reason why in the 1970s, the International Bible Society set about the project of the New International Version. By including scholars from countries all over the world and from the widest ever spectrum of denominations, they hoped to debate and agree on a translation that would remove cultural and theological translation bias. The resulting New International Version (NIV) became and remained the worlds most popular Bible among English speaking Evangelicals, also bringing enormous profits to its publisher Zondervan. Minor corrections were made to the translation in 1984. In 1987, Zondervan, the leading Evangelical publisher was bought by Harper Collins, a secular publisher. At first, nothing changed. At first, Zondervan continued to publish only orthodox conservative evangelical books.

In 1997, however, Christian leaders and theologians were distressed to hear that a politically correct/'gender neutral'/feminist update translation was being planned for the NIV. James Dobson, concerned about the implications for the family, convened a meeting between the team responsible for the NIV (the International Bible society, the Committee on Bible Translation, and Zondervan). Concerned theologians present included John Piper, Wayne Grudem and RC Sproul. At the meeting, the NIV team promised to scrap plans for a 'gender neutral' update to the NIV. (See http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-2-No-3/NIV-Controversy). The whole group then agreed to a set of principles called the 'Colorado Springs Guidelines' for translation of gender in the Bible. These principles were then endorsed by a further list of Christian leaders who read like a 'whos who' of American Christian leaders of the time. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/csguidelines.html ) The principles in plain English are that we should translate what it says in the original and not try to change that.

Nevertheless, the NIV team then broke this promise by continuing to secretly re-translate the NIV into 'gender neutral' language. When they had finished, just before the publication of the update version called Todays New International Version (TNIV) in 2002, they then sent a letter to those in the original meeting to say that they had changed their minds. The Christian public were not impressed. Hardly anyone bought the TNIV and it flopped. The public continued to demand the original authentically translated 1984 NIV. Angry Christians posted back their copies of the NIV to Zondervan in protest.

At the same time, the neo-liberal postmodern Emerging Church movement rose to prominence. The new Zondervan leadership, lacking the spiritual and Biblical motivation of their pious founder Mr Zondervan, began publishing numerous postmodern books. Much of the evangelical public, trusting the Zondervan label bought these books and thought they were Biblical. But under secular ownership, Zondervan abandoned its faithfulness to the Bible and deceived hundreds of thousands of Christians by publishing postmodern authors like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Dan Kimball, and Doug Pagitt under an evangelical imprint.

Theological scholars attacked the false-translations in the TNIV. One of the problems was that in many places singulars were changed to plurals to avoid giving the gender. For example,'him' became 'them'. This pluralisation detracted from the element of personal relationship of us and God. The NIV team, then responded to this criticism, by re-editing the TNIV to change many of the most offensive mis-translations in a new version called the '2011 NIV'. So now for example, with the well know verse Revelation 3:20, in the current (1984) NIV, Jesus says: "... If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."; in the 2011 NIV, Jesus says: "...If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."

Anyone who reads the current NIV can see that this sentence is 'masculine general' i.e. meant to refer to both men and women. But in other cases it is debatable and the meanings are subtle. For example, in many places the masculine assumes male leadership in the church, something that feminists evidently don't like. So, for example in James 3, while the 1984 NIV says "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers...", 2011 NIV says "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers..."

In other places, the Old Testament refers to the 'Son of Man' or the 'righteous man' alluding to Christ. Surely the reader should be allowed to decide for himself what it means and not have this meaning edited out by a feminist translator? Theologian Wayne Grudem explains these issues in more detail in http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/What-s-Wrong-with-Gender-Neutral-Bible-Translations

Have you every been irritated with someone trying to 'politically correct' you? How does the NIV team find the audacity to try to 'politically correct' Jesus Christ? Should we not rather listen to Jesus words and on this basis question the whole ideology of political correctness? Should we not rather be outraged that the NIV team are trying to politically correct God's Word?

Scholars are still studying the 2011 NIV to see exactly how many translation errors have been retained from the TNIV and how many have been corrected, but it is clear that it is full of errors http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/CBMW-Responds-to-New-NIV2011 . Initial studies show the 2011 NIV is much more similar to the error filled TNIV than the authentic 1984 NIV. Statistically, about a third of the verses are identical to the TNIV, but different to the 1984 NIV. http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/1873/niv-2011-update-first-impressions/

You can compare the two yourself online at http://www.biblegateway.com/ In places, such as Genesis 1:27, the 2011 NIV compromises by changing 'man' to 'mankind' which the feminists would probably still not like. In Psalm 1:1, it changes 'Blessed is the man...' to 'Blessed is the one...' On the term 'Son of man', the 2011 NIV compromises by translating sometimes correctly as 'Son of man' and sometimes incorrectly as 'human being'. But then the meaning of allusion to Christ is sometimes lost. So sometimes the 2011 version translates accurately and sometimes gender neutral. But why should Bible translators decide what gender references reach the public and what gets edited out? Surely we have a right to decide for ourselves how the meaning should be interpreted (i.e. is it masculine general or is it gender specific)?

But apart from being plain inaccurate translation, I argue this is another part of a broad scale attempt to remove gender distinctives from our society - as if gender was meaningless and didn't matter. That is the underlying logic behind foolish decisions like legalising same-sex marriage and sending women soldiers with men into military combat situations in Iraq. This feminist ideology is also undermining male leadership in the family and the church. The Word of God is the light and sword we have correct such foolishness. But now the 'gender-neutral' Bible translators are trying to darken the light of the Word of God with their 'political correctness'. Will the Word of God be a light to the world or will worldly ideology be allowed to edit the Word of God?

Now the counter-argument is that this helps understanding. For a long time we have accepted certain edits forced by cultural knowledge. For example, the Sudanese Bible translates 'white as snow' as 'white as cotton', since the Sudanse mostly don't know what snow is but do know what cotton is - and there is no known special meaning connected here with snow that is lost. But does this gender neutral translation actually help understanding or is this just pandering to feminism?

But political interference in Bible translation isn't new. In fact the much loved King James Version was also interfered with by the non-Christian, homosexual King James who wanted to promote hierachical authority which he felt would be easier to control than the decentralised Puritan congregations who used the Geneva Bible. "Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

Whatever the translation and the era, we ordinary readers want a version that faithfully translates what the original says and doesn't try to push a political agenda. That is what the original NIV set out to do but the 2011 NIV sadly fails to do.

Thankfully, the NIV team has not changed any of the references to God as masculine, but other postmodern translators are busy working on a mis-translation that would change that too. The arguments used to defend the gender neutral translation could be used to defend that too. Will the NIV follow in another decade or two?

When Zondervan brought out the TNIV, the continued to publish the 1984 NIV. The Christian public rejected the TNIV and kept buying the real 1984 NIV. But now Zondervan is planning to stop publishing the current NIV. That means those of us who like the translation won't be able to buy it any more.

Today, I went and bought an extra copy of the current 1984 NIV, in case I won't be able to get it in future. In South Africa, the NIV distributors are Lux Verbi. Again, the same problem with Zondervan. Lux Verbi, which used to be the publishing arm of the Dutch Reformed Church, is now part of Naspers, a secular publisher. This is a dangerous situation. Naspers also publishes soft porn magazines Mens Health and FHM and owns Multichoice which was not long ago wanting to offer a porn channel on DSTV. How can the same company be publishing both the Word of God and porn? http://sites.naspers.com/english/print.asp It would be helpful if some wealthy Christians were to buy back these Christian publishers Lux Verbi and Zondervan and put control back in Christian hands.

So, South African Xhosa readers can be reassured, they can still trust the Bible Society's Xhosa Bible even though it doesn't have a red edge, but bad news for English readers, the 2011 NIV is not the same as the 1984 NIV. Pastors should warn their churches, that the 2011 NIV is not reliable as was the 1984 NIV but not as bad as the TNIV. If the NIV stops publishing the 1984 NIV, you can instead buy the New King James Version, the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Version which are also reliable translations. Hopefully, if the NIV loses market share to these versions, the loss of profit will motivate the now secular-owned Zondervan to start publishing the real 1984 NIV again.

But no, I am not anti-the NIV. I love the NIV. I recommend the 1984 NIV. I read it every day and plan to continue. I hope it will continue to be published.

Please write and complain to Zondervan and Lux Verbi saying we want them to keep publishing the 1984 NIV and drop the 2011 NIV.
http://www.luxverbi-bm.com/contact-us
http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Company/ContactUs.htm

Yours sincerely,

Philip Rosenthal

CAN YOU FOLLOW CHRIST AND STILL STAY IN YOUR OLD RELIGION?

2011-02-25T05:55:00.000-08:00

25 February 2010

CAN YOU FOLLOW CHRIST AND STILL STAY IN YOUR OLD RELIGION?

Today, Christians around the world are giving thanks for the reported release of Said Musa, an Afghan convert from Islam to Christianity who had been sentenced to death unless he re-converted back to Islam. Turning to Christ in a country dominated by another religion is not safe. While at the University of Cape Town, I often shared the gospel with other students. Usually if they believed the gospel presentation, they would convert. If they did not, they would not convert. On one occasion, however, a Muslim student who we will call Achmed, listened closely as I read the scriptures on salvation, and after I read each he said that he believed it. So, when I had finished, I asked him whether he would like to receive Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord. "No" he replied. "Why?" I asked? "Because my family will disown me" he replied. So Achmed walked away from the gospel. Pained at this rejection of Christ, I called together some Christian friends to pray for Achmed's salvation. But before I could pray, one of them objected that he could not agree to pray. "Do you realise what will happen to him if he converts? Is it right to pray for someone to be thrown out of their family?" He asked. My confused Christian friend would not agree to pray for Achmed's salvation. What eventually happened to Achmed I don't know. I hope he eventually chose to follow Christ. But the cost of turning to Christ in some communities is not just the embarrassment of being called a 'Jesus freak'. It could cost your life or your family. Around the same time, Jewish student I knew who converted was thrown out of his home and went to stay with a Christian family. Many others have similar stories.

The question is: Is there an easier way? Do people from such backgrounds have to pay such a price? Can we get around such problems? For some time, postmodern Emerging Church leaders such as Brian McLaren have been promoting the idea that you can follow Christ and continue following another religion. For example, you can be a 'Muslim follower of Jesus' or a 'Buddhist follower of Christ'. We were used to crazy unbiblical ideas being suggested by McLaren and his postmodern pals and so most of us did not register too much surprise.

All that has changed this month, February 2011, with two shocking publications muddying the water of mainstream Evangelicalism. First, the Lausanne III 'Call to Action' (Part 2C,section4) reads "So called ‘insider movements’ are to be found within several religions. These are groups of people who are now following Jesus as their God and Saviour. They meet together in small groups for fellowship, teaching, worship and prayer centred around Jesus and the Bible while continuing to live socially and culturally within their birth communities, including some elements of its religious observance..." The Lausanne statement continues with a convoluted statement which acknowledges differences of opinion, but legitimises 'insider movements'. It downplays the risk of syncretism and portrays this postmodern trend as something that God is doing and discourages speaking against it. It fudges the issue of 'culture' versus 'religious observance'. What elements of 'religious observance' are acceptable and which are not is not properly defined. Lausanne III quotes scripture out of context in an attempt to justify such compromise by paralleling it with the Jerusalem council decision not to impose the whole Jewish law of Moses on Gentiles (Acts 15:19). The 'Insider movement' and the Lausanne statement, however is doing something quite different in accommodating continued non-Christian 'religious observance' that God has not commanded either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament. While at first glance the Lausanne statement may appear neutral towards the insider movement, it really benefits an aberrant movement and protects it against opposition.

The statement is problematic in that it attempts to synthesise the views of two opposite camps in the Lausanne III discussion, which was actually divided on the issue. These opposite views can't be reconciled. You have to choose one or the other - and the drafting committee of this statement should not have tried to unite opposite views that can't actually be united. A tragic compromise with postmodernism in a mostly helpful document. Sadly it is not consistent with the excellent stand the same document takes against Postmodernism in (Part 2A, section2). It is also contradicts the Biblical teaching theme of the Lausanne III congress, presented by John Piper on the body of Christ based on the book of Ephesians.

Most Biblical Christians were asleep when postmodernists began inserting words like 'sexual orientation' and 'reproductive choice' into public policy documents. Today we pay the price as we see these words used to promote homosexual rights and abortion. In the same way, 'Insider movement' is a 'code word' for the postmodern missionary strategy which means a lot more than it seems to say.

What do they mean by 'religious observance'? Probably many of those who consented to the Lausanne III Call to action statement would take a conservative narrow interpretation such as Messianic Jews observing Jewish religious holidays. But we already know that postmodernists are taking a wide interpretation of it. Many such 'Insider movement' members for example believe in the prophethood of Mohammed, the authority of the Quran, live in obedience to Islamic law and make pilgrimage to Mecca, affirm the creeds of Islam and worship at Mosque. They just read the Bible and claim to follow Jesus as well. Some reinterpret Bible passages about Ishmael as giving legitimacy to Islam. Some downplay and evade Jesus being the Son of God. Certain 'insider' Jews deny they are Christians or part of the Christian church, but say they follow Jesus. These are radical shifts. This narrow meaning and broad meaning confusion is what happened with the postmodern words 'sexual orientation' and 'reproductive choice' remember? When first debated people didn't think it meant much, but there was a very big postmodern agenda being pushed through those few words.

In the 1920's most of the protestant missions organisations were hijacked by liberalism and money donated for the gospel got diverted to the promotion of general good works to help humanity, which left out Christ. Now the Postmodernists attempt to divert missionary effort to a new strategy which accommodates the religious culture of the target group to the point of distorting the gospel. World Missions is being undermined from within by hijacking of the structures of mainstream evangelicalism by postmodernism.

If this sounds alarmist, read the cover article in the February 2011 issue of the American Christianity Today 'The Son and the Crescent'. Postmodernists have published a new Bible translation for Muslims, which edits out the fact that Jesus is the Son of God on the basis that this offends Muslims! It translates 'Son of God' rather as "the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God." They claim Muslims prefer this version. That is not the point. The point is whether this is the true Word of God. No! It is not. It is dodging a central teaching of the Christian faith. It is undermining Christ's divinity. Every male in the world is a 'son' of someone. 'Come from God' can be taken in a metaphorical sense to be any prophet who is sent by God (and Muslims don't dispute that Jesus was a prophet). This is not just false teaching twisting scripture. They are actually publishing a false Bible and claiming it is a true one. It is plain fraud. Christianity Today has been publishing postmodern leaning articles for a while, but in writing a favourable article about this new fraudulent postmodern Bible, they take a tragic step into endorsing heresy. We can't just take an innocent 'conservative', 'narrow' interpretation of religious observance in Lausanne III - when the postmodern 'insider movement' is already showing its hand with this blatant blasphemy. Such a soft statement opens the door for compromise and heresy and that door needs to be closed.

This is no longer just an intellectual debate. What is at stake is the truth of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the definition of a Christian, the future and unity of evangelicalism, the orthodoxy of our largest evangelical institutions and the future of missions.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED?

* Acceptance of the 'insider movement' opens the door for converts from all sorts of religious beliefs to continue practicing their old religion. There is already a problem in the Western culture, with confused postmodern converts e.g. from the New Age movement wanting to blend Christianity with New Age practices. This compromise will make such practices easier.

* An academic theory of missions has been developed at Fuller Seminary which rates the scale of cultural adaptation on a scale of 1-5. One means mild accommodation of the culture, while ‘5’ means ‘insider movement’ and functioning basically inside the structures of another religion. This theory has given the new movement some credibility. Nevertheless, it is argued that the ‘Insider movement’ is going much too far in accommodating culture.

* 'Insider movement' believers in many cases are trying to follow Christ without joining the church. But the church is the body of Christ. Jesus did not die to give us a 'Muslim body' and a 'Buddhist body'. There is only one body and we should all be so grateful to belong to it. It creates multiple identities of different types of Christian. There is only one body in Christ (Ephesians 4:4) and our identity should be in this body and not in a former religion.

* Postmodern 'Insider missionaries' claim to have great success and large numbers of conversions to justify their new strategy. Orthodox evangelical missionaries dispute this claim. In many cases, they say that those 'Insider missionaries' count as converts are not true believers but are just interested Muslims who have never even being challenged properly to convert.

* Many of us are familiar with the Messianic Jewish movement. That is people who are Jewish by race but believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. I am such a Messianic Jew. Some Messianic Jews form congregations which meet on Fridays and celebrate Jewish holidays. Is this wrong? No. There is nothing in the Bible against it. But some of these people take this to an extreme and say that they are not Christians at all, but Jews. They don't identify at all with the rest of the body of Christ and keep their identity totally Jewish - and separate from Gentile Christians. That is not biblical. It is wrong. Our identity in Christ and the wider body of Christ, the church must come first before our culture. This latter group of extremists are part of the 'Insider movement'. That was a development which the apostle Paul viciously attacked in the book of Galatians (2:12-13). Paul had no issue with limited accommodation of Jewish culture to help win people to Christ (e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:20) but he had a major issue with taking on the symbols of that religion to avoid persecution (Galatians 6:12).

* Baptism is meant as a public marker to separate the new convert from his old religious belief. This has always caused massive controversy throughout the world and sparked major persecution. It symbolises death to the old life and a resurrection into the new. Baptism was Jesus idea - not ours. A Christian is a new man. You can't get more different than that. We must accept this is a central part of our faith and it will offend many of the old religion.

* The 'Insider movement' and the Lausanne statement's condoning of it threaten the definition of Christianity. Evangelicalism was a narrow subset of the broader visible institutional church. It for example excluded the Chinese state controlled 'Three self church', the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Liberal protestant denominations. But so called 'insiders' who continue substantially as part of other religious beliefs and in many cases don't even identify themselves was Christians. It blurs the boundaries and rubbishes the point of a limited Statement of faith.

* Even orthodox evangelical churches struggle with the problem of unbelieving churchgoers who outwardly profess Christianity but are not true followers of Christ. Taking away the outward boundary markers of Christianity will make this question even harder to determine.

* This movement is diverting resources away from gospel centred missions and in places spreading a false and heretical Bible. It needs to be stopped.

* The 'insider strategy' of trying to lead Muslims to Christ by quoting them verses from the Quran implicitly gives the Quran authority. If one does not believe the Quran is from God then is this not misleading and deceptive and likely to confuse the new convert?

* There is always the risk that those who are trying to reach out to a particular other group of people reach too far and then start to accept some of the false beliefs of that other group. They start off with misleading advertising and then start to believe their own advertising. This also happens for example in the pro-life movement with people trying to reach out to those considering abortion or feminists or whatever. They can start of using the rhetoric of the other side then end up compromising their own beliefs and eventually deny that they themselves are pro-life. We are influenced by the people around us which is why God has given us the institution of the church to protect us.

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HISTORY?

* Historically, there have been times when whole Christian communities have been forced to convert to Islam or face death or some other severe penalty. Tragically many did compromise and agree to become outward Muslims by saying a Muslim creed, while continuing quietly to practice Christianity. Those communities have vanished because their children have abandoned Christianity altogether to become real Muslims. The same is likely to happen to the children of 'Insider Muslims'.

* The Israeli secret service attempted to infiltrate the Muslim community by sending Jewish spies to train as Imams. The strategy backfired, when many of these Imam's succumbed to social pressure to marry and raised Muslim children. This caused massive confusion and heartache for all. The lesson is that social pressure in such communities is enormous and confusions of identity are very painful.

* There is no time ever in the history of the Church when so-called 'insider movements' have been accepted as a part of orthodox mainstream biblical Christianity. Insiders claim and the Lausanne III statement implies that God is now doing something new which we should accept. If this is such a good idea, then why did God wait 2000 years to reveal this new idea to the church? And why has respected orthodox Bible believing theologian or Statement of faith ever seen Biblical justification for it before? Answer: Because it is unbiblical.

* Syncretism (mixing of religions) has been a major problem throughout the whole history of the Bible and of Christian missions. The Lausanne III statement foolishly downplays that danger. We have to fight to keep Christianity pure. It is not going to stay that way by default. In South Africa we have millions of so-called 'Zionist' Christians who mix witchcraft and belief in ancestors with Christianity. This is not biblical. And it is a constant battle for mainstream denominations throughout Africa to stop such mixing of beliefs. The same is found in South America, where local ancient pagan gods were just adapted to become catholic saints and still worshipped in the same way they always had been. Ancient Israel had to battle with the influence of Canaanite idols throughout their history. It is not helpful for Lausanne III to issue a statement downplaying this danger. A risk is that the current postmodern missionary strategy of reaching Islam will spawn a new hybrid religion of 'Chrislam'.

CONCLUSION

The Lausanne III statement is counter-productive in dealing with a new postmodern "insider movement' strategy of missions. It threatens the definition of Christianity. The Lausanne III drafting committee should withdraw this clause. Biblical missiologists and theologians need to apply their minds to this issue and come up with a more biblical statement response. The blog, http://biblicalmissiology.org is starting this process.

Please register your objection to the Lausanne III Cape Town Commitment (Part 2C,section4) paragraph on 'insider movements' at:
http://www.lausanne.org/lausanne-staff/lausanne-documents.html and ask them to withdraw it.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Rosenthal

MORE INFORMATION

Christianity Today Magazine spreads confusion on the doctrine of the Son of God.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/february/soncrescent.html

Lausanne 'Call to Action' text on the insider movement.
http://www.lausanne.org/ctcommitment#p2-4

Afghan convert to Christ released
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/23/aid-worker-arrested-christian-release-afghanistan-prison/

Recommended resource on the insider movement:
http://biblicalmissiology.org/2010/05/03/position-paper-on-the-insider-movement/

A NOTE ON MY PREVIOUS ARTICLE ON LAUSANNE III

For those who read my previous article on the Lausanne III Congress, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianview/message/493, I am sorry, on publication, I looked for the section on Postmodernism and was encouraged by it, while skim reading the rest of the document which is in this instance self-contradictory. Most of the document is very good and helpful but there are problems and I believe this is the most serious. The Lausanne III Call to Action is a very long document in contrast to the much shorter Lausanne I & II documents. The longer the document, the harder it is for everyone to check it carefully for problems. After seeing this problem, I took time to research the issue and discuss with others before responding with this article, which is the reason for the delayed response. I wish I could wholeheartedly endorse the Lausanne III Call to Action. Unfortunately I cannot. To be silent I believe I would be an unfaithful watchman (Isaiah 56:10). However unpopular it might make me, I must sound an alarm.

LAUSANNE CONGRESS 'CAPE TOWN CALL TO ACTION' AGAINST POSTMODERNISM

2011-02-02T03:23:00.000-08:00

LAUSANNE CONGRESS 'CAPE TOWN CALL TO ACTION' AGAINST POSTMODERNISM

http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2011/02/lausanne-congress-cape-town-call-to.html

This week, the Lausanne Congress released the final version of 'The Cape Town Commitment: Call to action' http://www.lausanne.org/ctcommitment. The first part (previously released) is a general evangelical Statement of Faith. The second part (released this week) is a call to action based on the discussions leading up to and during the Lausanne Congress held in Cape Town in October 2010. What is significant is that the first article explicitly speaks up against Postmodernism as follows:

"Cultural and religious plurality is a fact and Christians in Asia, for example, have lived with it for centuries. Different religions each affirm that theirs is the way of truth. Most will seek to respect competing truth claims of other faiths and live alongside them. However postmodern, relativist pluralism is different. Its ideology allows for no absolute or universal truth. While tolerating truth claims, it views them as no more than cultural constructs. (This position is logically self-destroying for it affirms as a single absolute truth that there is no single absolute truth.) Such pluralism asserts ‘tolerance’ as an ultimate value, but it can take oppressive forms in countries where secularism or aggressive atheism govern the public arena.

A) We long to see greater commitment to the hard work of robust apologetics. This must be at two levels.
1. We need to identify, equip and pray for those who can engage at the highest intellectual and public level in arguing for and defending biblical truth in the public arena.
2. We urge Church leaders and pastors to equip all believers with the courage and the tools to relate the truth with prophetic relevance to everyday public conversation, and so to engage every aspect of the culture we live in."
http://www.lausanne.org/ctcommitment#p2-1

WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT?

* Firstly, because Evangelical Christianity has been under severe and sustained attack from those who wish to compromise and synthesize Christianity with Postmodernism (called the Emerging Church movement) instead of fighting back against it. Some of our largest Evangelical institutions including for example Zondervan Publishers, many denominations and seminaries have been compromising. These compromisers threaten to destroy the very definition of Biblical evangelical Christianity.

* Secondly, because the Lausanne Congress is the single largest and most influential institution in Evangelical Christianity in the world today. Unlike many other institutions which misleadingly claim the title 'international', it has representatives from all over the world (except for those under persecution whose governments prevented their citizens from participating).

* Thirdly, because the statement is explicit. Unlike many other public statements, it does not beat about the bush. Postmodernism is identified as false, illogical, misleading, a negative influence a threat to Evangelical Christianity and religious freedom.

* Fourthly, because it proposes sensible measures for churches to fight back against postmodernism by identifying, equipping and praying for leaders who can argue against it in the public arena and in educating all believers with the skills to debate against it. ('Apologetics' means defending the gospel against attack). In this context it means defending the truth against the false teaching of Postmodernism.

* Fifthly, because combating Postmodernism in the church in the Western World will greatly assist the forward progress of world evangelism (the principal goal of the Lausanne Congress) and the persecuted church. Read why here:
http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-postmodernism-and-emerging-church.html (This article I submitted to the planning sessions of the Lausanne Congress in 2008, encouraging them to make a statement against postmodernism - which is what they have done).

* Sixthly, because they put the call to action to defend the truth against Postmodernism first in the practical part of the document their 'call to action', recognising the central importance of the fight against Postmodernism to the defence and advance of Christianity in the Western World.

* Seventh, because it affirms the definition of Evangelicalism and draws a new boundary. Mainline evangelical Protestantism in the Western World has been destroyed through compromise and accommodation of the ideology of Modernist liberalism. Evangelical Protestantism was then renamed 'Evangelicalism' by those who wanted a description of their beliefs that had real meaning. The meaning of Evangelicalism was being eroded by accommodation of Postmodern liberalism. Old statements faith were not capturing this issue. Now the boundaries have been redrawn to exclude Postmodernism.

Let us build on this victory and see that the 'Lausanne Congress Cape Town Call to Action' against Postmodernism is heeded on the ground!

WHAT CAN I DO?

* Please give this to your pastor and the elders of your church or the leader of your Christian organisation. Forward it by email or print out this email and give it to him. Encourage him to implement this recommendation and educate his congregation against Postmodernism. He can find resources to do so at: http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/
* Thank God for this great victory!
* Pray for any Christian institutions you may be a member of that they will be protected from Postmodern influence.
* Encourage your church and any institution you are a part of to publicise the above clause from the Lausanne Call to Action. Read it out in church or at your leaders meeting.

Let us heed this call and defend the church against Postmodernism.

Post your comments here:
http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2011/02/lausanne-congress-cape-town-call-to.html

Yours sincerely

Philip Rosenthal

NEW BOOK: DIE TROJAANSE PERD IN DIE NG KERK

2010-11-29T06:44:00.000-08:00

29 November 2010

NEW BOOK: DIE TROJAANSE PERD IN DIE NG KERK

A new book "Die Trojaanse Perd in die NG Kerk" has just been released (see link below). Amongst other things, it describes the encroachments of the Emerging Church in this denomination - in some ways it has been infected much more seriously than many other denominations. While the acceptance of other race groups is welcomed, since 1994 the NGK has radically softened its stance on morality and biblical truth. When the issue of Same-Sex Marriage was debated in parliament, the NGK parliamentary lobbyist supported state 'same-sex marriage', while not wanting to have it done by their church. He openly professed his view to be postmodern, while calling the Biblical view 'pre-modern'. Why the drastic shift in the NGK? My opinion (not those of the book authors) is three fold:
* Firstly, the NGK by previously aligning itself with other social and political structures attracted many who are not true Christians who joined simply because that was the socially acceptable thing to do at the time. These people have no sincere commitment to biblical truth and have shifted with the winds of culture to what is now 'politically correct'.
* Secondly, the church has handed its theological training over to secular universities, where it cannot control the appointment of lecturers and ensure they are biblical and this unbiblical teaching has been taught to their students.
* Thirdly, they appear to have ended up with a similar crisis of biblical confidence to the Presbyterian church in the Southern United States. Both churches have very similar Calvinist theology. The Southern Presbyterians failed to speak up against slavery until the Northern United States had militarily conquered the South. Then they suddenly shifted their position to 'anti-slavery' after the law changed, without properly explaining to their followers from the scriptures why they had made the shift. The result from their followers was a loss of confidence in the authority of the church. The Southern Presbyterians then tried various 'unity' efforts with the Northern Presbyterians to try to bolster their credibility. In doing so, they sadly compromised their theological principles in exchange for such 'unity' and opened the door to liberalism, which later over-ran their churches. It appears a similar dynamic has occurred within the NGK after the fall of apartheid.

There is a need for Bible believing Christians to speak up for Biblical truth. If you are in the NGK, this book can help equip you to do so.

Below is a summary of one of the chapters on the Emerging Church in the NGK. Please forward this email to your Afrikaans friends

http://www.glodiebybel.co.za/boeke-m/189-die-trojaanse-perd-in-die-ng-kerk.html

Philip Rosenthal

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Die aanslag op die Woord vanuit postmodernistiese denkwyses

Een van die hoofstukke in die boek “Die Trojaanse Perd in die NG Kerk – die kanker van Evolusie en Liberalisme” bekyk nuwe stroming wat tans nie net in die NG Kerk woed nie, maar in die meeste gereformeerde denominasies in Suid-Afrika, en ook op verskillende plekke in die wêreld.
Daar word gekyk na hoe die ommekeer in Skrifbeskouing ook nie Skrifkritiek en Skrifgebruik onaangetas gelaat het nie. Dit het tot gevolg dat Bybelwaarhede soos die opstanding van Christus, Sy maagdelike geboorte, Sy Godheid en selfs Sy plaasvervangende sterwe verloën word. Daar kan selfs gevra word: Is die hart van die evangelie nie uitgeruk nie? Die liberale aanslag het verdoemende gevolge op vele terreine.

In wese is die postmoderne teoloë se verstaan van die Skrif van so ‘n aard dat daar nie juis veel van die Evangelie oorbly nie. Die maagdelike geboorte van Christus én sy liggaamlike opstanding word verwerp. Die kruisdood word deur sommige geleerdes as ‘n wrede daad van die Vader uitgebeeld. ‘n Vader wat Sy Seun doodmaak vir die sondes van ander, moet gehaat word. Die Bybel word nie meer gesien as die ware, geïnspireerde en onfeilbare Woord van God nie, maar as ‘n versameling werke wat niks méér sê nie, as bloot wat mense in die verlede oor God geglo het.

Ernstige kommer word in hierdie boek uitgespreek oor die ongereformeerde rigting wat hierdie strominge ingaan en die traagheid om met leertug teen teoloë op te tree wat meelopers hiervan is. Van hierdie nuwe strominge wat onder die vergrootglas kom , is die Ontluikende Kerk “Emerging/Emergent Church”) en die “Nuwe Hervorming” . Enkele gedagtes word ook uitgespreek oor die Evangeliese Inisiatief (EI).

Die Ontluikende Kerk (Emerging Church)

Een van die mees resente strome van geestelike misleiding het byna ongemerk die Christelike Kerk wêreldwyd oorspoel. Hierdie uiters subtiele postmoderne “herverwoording” van die Evangelie staan bekend as die Ontluikende Kerk (Emerging Church), en is besig om in ‘n toenemende mate ‘n alles-omvattende paradigmaverskuiwing in elke faset van die Christendom teweeg te bring. Die Ontluikende Kerk-beweging met sy gepaardgaande teologiese rigting van postmodernisme, is bo alles ‘n aanslag op die Bybel. Die Ontluikende Kerk sluit aan by en eerbiedig die kultuur van die dag. Dit het min of meer sedert 2004 sterk na vore gekom en dit wil voorkom asof die rigting veral aanklank vind onder die jonger geslag.

Die Ontluikende Kerk is ‘n beweging of ‘n stroming eerder as ‘n gestruktureerde organisasie of kerkverband. Een van die filosofiese uitgangspunte van dié beweging is dat dit ‘n deug is om onseker te wees of twyfel te hê oor geloofsake! Ons kan dit ook beskryf as ‘n verheerliking van onsekerheid. Die vertrekpunt van die beweging is dus dat dit algeheel onmoontlik is om presies te verstaan wat die Bybel regtig leer en bedoel.

Brian McLaren, een van die bekendste ontluikendes, glo byvoorbeeld nie meer aan Christus as persoonlike Verlosser van sonde nie, maar as “Hervormer” van die wêreld – dus tipiese vryheidsteologie. Hy ontken ook Christus se wederkoms en God se toekomstige oordeel van die wêreld. Dit is jammer dat die bekende Bill Hybels van die makro gemeente Willow Creek in Chicago, homself assosieer met hom.

Van die ander name wat in hierdie verband genoem word, is Leonard Sweet, Rob Bell, Tony Jones en Erwin McManus. Kerkleiers in die NG Kerk wat stadig maar seker besig is om in te koop op hierdie subtiele misleiding is onder andere prof. Julian Müller, Nelus Niemand en Stephan Joubert.

Die mees ontstellende aspek van die Ontluikende-infiltrasie is dat hulle veral die Kerklike jeug van die wêreld in hulle visier het. Youth Specialties is ‘n multi-biljoen dollar Ontluikende-jeugorganisasie wat internasionaal opereer. In hul gratis kursusmateriaal, wat wêreldwyd deur jeugleiers en -predikante van hulle massiewe webtuiste afgelaai word, propageer hulle onder andere mistieke Oosterse meditasiepraktyke, homoseksualiteit en masturbasie.

Die leer van die “Nuwe Hervorming” (NH) – 'n radikale breuk met die Christelike geloof

Die Nuwe Hervorming wil doelbewus en radikaal breek met die Kerk- en teologiegeskiedenis van die verlede. Die ekumeniese en reformatoriese belydenisskrifte en die Kerklike dogmas, soos dit deur die eeue ontwikkel het, word verwerp.

Daar is binne die nuwe Godsleer van die Nuwe Hervorming geen ruimte meer vir gebed nie. Feitlik elke aspek van die Bybelse verlossingsleer word hervertolk: Die ontvangenis en geboorte van Christus, die wonders, sy kruisdood as soenoffer en die opstanding. Die uitdaging is, volgens die Nuwe Hervorming, om hierdie verhale as mites te verstaan en akkuraat oor die betekenis daarvan te praat “want die wyse waarop die evangelie die goeie boodskap aangaande Jesus verstaan en aanbied, is onversoenbaar met die moderne wêreldbeeld en Bybelwetenskap”.

Reaksies van die Evangeliese Inisiatief

Nadat ‘n DVD “Nuwe Strominge in die Teologie” van WTL Multimedia Produksies verskyn het, het die Evangeliese Inisiatief (EI) ontstaan. Sommige mense het beweer dat dit ‘n poging was om die “verwarring” wat by lidmate ontstaan het, te help opklaar. Die vraag is egter of dit gaan oor “verwarring” by die lidmate of oor “afwyking” by die leierskap van die Kerk. Dit is sekerlik duidelik dat baie ingeligte lidmate lankal reeds agtergekom het dat daar by die Kerkleiding ‘n radikale afwyking gekom het in hul teologiese benadering!

Dit het vir lidmate duidelik geword dat daar ‘n heeltemal nuwe benadering gekom het tot die Bybel as die Woord van God. Dit is so eenvoudig soos dit is. Lidmate het waardering vir die Skrifgetroue prediking by die byeenkoms van 13 Oktober 2007 wat onder leiding van die Evangeliese Inisiatief by Moreletapark gereël was. Hulle het ook waardering vir die getuienis wat dit uitgedra het ten opsigte van die waarheid wat vir ons erns is. Of die Algemene Sinode of die teologiese fakulteite egter hulle teologie rondom die Skrif en die hantering daarvan gaan omkeer, bly ‘n ope vraag. Sal predikante vanaf 2008 nog steeds opgelei word deur dieselfde dosente wat ons in die afgelope dekades leer ken het? Dink ook aan dosente van ander kerke wat byvoorbeeld by UP (en elders!) betrokke is!

Samevatting

Opsommend kan gesê word dat die postmodernisme ‘n reaksie is teen die noukeurig-gedefinieerde waarheid van die Bybel. Wat behoort ons antwoord te wees ten opsigte van hierdie aanslag op die duidelikheid van die Woord? Dit kan niks anders wees nie, as dat ons doelgerig en volhardend die Woord sal bly handhaaf en suiwer sal verkondig. God neem deur Sy Gees die verantwoordelikheid om deur die waarheid van Sy Woord, te doen wat Hom behaag. Só bring Hy Sy Goddelike plan soewerein tot uitvoer (Jes. 55:10-11).

----------------------------------------------------

If you are in the NGK, why not order your copy at:

http://www.glodiebybel.co.za/boeke-m/189-die-trojaanse-perd-in-die-ng-kerk.html

WHY DEFEND THE FLOCK AGAINST LIES ABOUT GOD?

2010-08-20T04:15:00.000-07:00

WHY DEFEND THE FLOCK AGAINST LIES ABOUT GOD?

THE TOLERANT ATTITUDE OF OUR CULTURE INFLUENCES THE CHURCH
DOES THIS REALLY MATTER?
WHAT IS WORTH FIGHTING ABOUT: CATEGORIES OF TRUTH
FOCUSING THE BATTLE
JESUS TEST OF A TRUE SHEPHERD
ISN’T IT UNLOVING TO FIGHT HERESY?
WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
THE BATTLE FOR TRUTH IN CHURCH HISTORY
FROM HISTORY TO TODAY

Should we tolerate Christians teaching whatever they want to or should churches set boundaries on what we will allow?

THE TOLERANT ATTITUDE OF OUR CULTURE INFLUENCES THE CHURCH

The attitude of our culture is to let people say just about whatever they want provided they don’t expect me to believe it. Christians influenced by postmodern culture will argue: Isn’t that’s free speech - our Constitutional right – a freedom people fought and died for. So are we in the church going to throw that away by dogmatically demanding that people can’t teach contrary to our church’s beliefs? Do we want to go back to the Middle ages where people were burned at the stake for what they believed? Do we want to be like the Taliban or some sect of narrow minded fundamentalist bigots? Or will we promote free thinking, enquiry, conversation and debate? If we try to silence teaching with which we disagree aren’t we being unloving? What harm do people do just by sharing their ideas – even if wrong? Surely we should give them space in the free market of ideas? Is it not okay to allow publication and preaching of incorrect teachings so long as the truth also gets a voice? That is what most of our culture says. But is that what we should practice - and what does the Bible say?

The biggest debate in the church today is not about what is true, but what teaching should be allowed. We believe a lot of different things. People in the same local church congregation often have different views on lots of things. There is even more diversity in the same denomination. People grow up in churches and adopt different beliefs to their parents. Should they be thrown out or silenced? Who should be allowed in the pulpit? Who should be allowed to publish in church magazines and newspapers? If we hear something with which we don’t agree in the pulpit should we keep quiet or object? And does this really all matter?

DOES THIS REALLY MATTER?

Yes it does matter. Why? Firstly because ideas have consequences. What people believe influences what they do – and people get ideas from teaching. In the most serious instances, false teaching can result in people going to hell. Secondly because false teaching spreads. It spreads especially fast when it tells people what they want to hear (1 Timothy 4:3). This is usually whatever is most popular with worldly culture at the time. Thirdly, because false teaching must be stopped first if we are to maintain moral discipline in the church. If people are allowed teach falsely on ethics, then we can’t later take disciplinary action against others who follow their teaching on those issues. Thus we have to control what is taught. But how much do we control it?

WHAT IS WORTH FIGHTING ABOUT: CATEGORIES OF TRUTH

It is helpful to divide what we believe into three categories of truth. Firstly the essentials we need to believe and practice to be a Christian avoid risking our eternal salvation. Secondly, the distinctive beliefs of our church group, which make us who we are. Thirdly, other debatable matters. When someone comes with a teaching we don’t agree with, we must discern which category their teaching fits into before we decide how tolerant we will be. Sometimes an issue is not simple to place in one of these three categories. Then we must ask how that teaching affects other teachings and practices and what categories those fit into. The more significant issues a false teaching affects, the more significant it is.

When someone teaches something that undermines the essential truths of the gospel needed to be a Christian, then we have to be intolerant and fight them – otherwise people may go to hell as a consequence of the false teaching. When someone teaches against the distinctives of our church group, then they can’t be tolerated inside our church group, but we can still have Christian fellowship as a friend in another group. Local churches need statements of faith to define and make clear what teachings are non-negotiable for them. For example, for Baptists, believers baptism and congregational accountability of leadership are non-negotiable distinctives. People who don’t believe in these are brother Christians, but can’t join a Baptist church. It is not enough to just say ‘we believe the Bible’, because most erroneous cults also say that but interpret it differently. Other debatable issues, we have to tolerate differences of opinion even inside our local church.

But can’t things get really complicated in deciding where an issue fits? Yes, they do. That is why we have to think critically about the popular teachings of our day in the light of scripture. In New Testament times, there was a massive controversy over circumcision. At a superficial reading, the apostle seems inconsistent on this issue. In some instances he seems to be arguing that the issue doesn’t matter all that much, other times in favour and other times against. Was he just fickle? No. Paul wasn’t too concerned about the issue of circumcision itself, but rather how it affected the gospel. When, for example, people came to Galatia and taught that circumcision was necessary to be a Christian, then he came out strongly against them (Galatians 5:2 and Acts 15:1). In another situation, however Paul himself circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) to avoid offending people. Paul was not wanting to fight about circumcision itself, but to protect the gospel. Today, similarly we have Christians who peacefully disagree on the issue of whether one should baptise children as infants or only when they are old enough to decide what they believe. But when people teach that one must be baptised in order to be saved, then such people we have to fight with, because that affects the gospel.

FOCUSING THE BATTLE

Since there is so much we could fight about – and arguing causes division and pain in the church - we need to focus most of our attention on the first category: defending the essentials where false belief or practice can put a person’s eternal salvation at risk. The Bible has very harsh words about these kinds of teachers. It calls them ‘false prophets’ and ‘wolves in sheeps clothing’ (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29; 2 Peter 2:1). We should never use such harsh labels casually against brother believers with whom we disagree in the second category (of denominational distinctives) or the third category (of debatable issues). Such wolves must be silenced (Titus 1:10-11) and disciplined by excommunication (1 Timothy 1:19-20) until they repent. We do not give them equal space in the pulpit or our magazines or web sites or lecture halls. It does not matter how nice they are, how many good works they have done, how many theological degrees they have, how popular or senior they are or how many friends they have. If their teaching or behaviour is undermining the gospel, then we have to be intolerant. If they repent, they may be accepted back, but otherwise not. Usually such false teachers will have found the protection of some group of deceived followers that protects them from any such discipline. In these cases, we have to simply speak up against them to warn people and to disassociate with them.

JESUS TEST OF A TRUE SHEPHERD

Now always there will be some nice Christians who will say that this is unloving and will criticise the pastor who does this. How do we answer this? Firstly, the word ‘pastor’ means ‘shepherd’. Part of the job of a shepherd is to defend the flock from wild animals that might harm them. It isn’t the nicest part of his job, but Jesus defines it as the test between a true shepherd and one who is just in it for worldly reward “JN 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.” The pastor who defends the flock will risk serious counter-attack. He might lose his job. He might lose his reputation. But he is a true genuine servant of God. We must not forget that Jesus crucifixion was triggered by his public attack earlier that week against the false Jewish religious leaders (Matthew 23). Sadly, today such people are a minority in church leadership which is the main reason the church is in such a mess.

Jesus introduces a third category who are neither wolves nor true shepherds. He calls them ‘hired hands’. They will not do anything scandalous or teach falsely themselves, but they will happily tolerate those who do. Such people often enter ministry full of zeal for the gospel, but somewhere along the line they lose focus and forget their mission for the gospel. Some just go into ministry with a vague desire to ‘spread the love of Jesus’ and help people. Maybe they never understood the requirement of a pastor/elder to defend the flock in the first place (Titus 1:9). Some maybe don’t understand the truth clearly enough to be able to defend it. Such people won’t risk their jobs or their denominational pensions or their reputations to defend the gospel. They want to be popular in the community and rationalize that being so helps them do their ministry work in contradiction to Jesus warning that we would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12). Sadly, they will often fight to defend the organisation and its power and hierarchy, but not to defend truth. Probably in the life of every Christian leader our loyalty to the truth of the gospel will be tested at least once – will we be true defenders of the gospel or will we be passive ‘hired hands’. The Lord in his sovereignty allows false teachers to test our loyalty to him (Deuteronomy 13:2-3). Will we pass the test?

The number of ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ within true biblical churches who teach things that undermine the essentials of salvation tends to be very small. This is because either the biblical denominations discipline and remove them or their teaching will spread and the biblical denomination will soon cease to be biblical. In the Western world in the last hundred years, such people have usually been called ‘liberals’. But the number of ‘hired hands’ who will tolerate such people is often very large. Such people often call themselves ‘moderates’. When challenged, they protest that they are doctrinally orthodox on every point – and they are. But they will happily leave the door open for the wolves to prey on the sheep. They are pacifists in the war of theology and our culture. This makes the fight complicated, because the true shepherd and those believers who support him – who are often called ‘conservatives’ are up against not only ‘liberal’ wolves – who cast doubt on the essentials of the gospel, but also often an army of ‘moderates’ who can’t discern wolves and think it is unloving to fight wolves. In church history, thus usually the main conflict has not been between wolves (liberals regarding the Bible) and shepherds (biblical conservatives), but between ‘hired hands’ (biblical moderates) and ‘shepherds’ (biblical conservatives).

Many such people are thankfully only temporarily led astray into siding with the wrong camp. Once challenged, they realise they need to side with truth. In the early church circumcision controversy, Peter and Barnabas caved in to pressure from the circumcision lobby and withdrew associating with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-13), but when Paul challenged them, they sided properly with the gospel. They may have still believed the truth, but like so many compromising ‘moderates’, they failed to take a stand for truth when under pressure. Doctrinally they took the right side, but politically in their associations they took the wrong side. This shows that any of us can fall into this trap if we are not careful – and we may need others to point this out to us.

ISN’T IT UNLOVING TO FIGHT HERESY?

What of the argument that it is unloving to fight heresy? If we truly love someone, will we not fight to defend their reputation and stop someone else telling lies about them? So when someone teaches falsely about God – such as trying redefine the nature of God - then if we truly love God will we not fight for the truth about him. People who use this argument show they love men more than God. But do they even love men with the right type of love? When we allow false teachers to tell people the wrong way to get to heaven, is not the result people going to hell? Is that loving to the deceived people? If we really love homosexuals, will we stand by idly while false teachers tell them they can continue to sin and go to heaven? Many Post-modern heretical teaches portray a God so different from that of the Bible (for example that in the popular novel ‘The Shack’, that one has to ask whether they worship the same God or an idol of their own carving?

WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH?

As for the free speech argument, this is not an absolute. Speech is not totally free anywhere or society would degenerate into chaos. Those who publish lies about other people get sued for defamation. Those who advertise falsely get taken to the Advertising Standards Authority. In the case of God, liars have some freedom in civil society because the state is not competent to judge what is true about God. But a biblical church is competent to judge truth about God and must do so. Those who teach heresy need to be thrown out of the church or marginalised into false churches, but don’t go to jail.

THE BATTLE FOR TRUTH IN CHURCH HISTORY

In the fourth century AD, there was a debate on the issue of whether Jesus was in fact God. False teachers called Arians argued he was not God (similar to today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses). The Council of Nicaea declared that Jesus was God, drew up a nice statement of faith http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm and all thought the battle was over. But it wasn’t. The battle raged on for another hundred years led by a man named Athanasius of Alexandria. He wasn’t satisfied just to win on paper. He wanted the Arians pushed out of the church. Most Christian leaders saw him as a troublemaker. So did the Roman emperors, who saw him as someone causing division and disturbing the peace. His opponents brought numerous slanderous allegations against Athanasius. Many attempts were made to arrest and kill him, he was brought trial on various occasions and he was forced into banishment or hiding five times for a total of seventeen years. The Roman emperors decreed that all Christian bishops must excommunicate Athanasius or face banishment themselves. Tragically almost all did so. Even the bishop of Rome, Liberius was banished for two years and then caved in to pressure to disassociate with Athanasius. So, excommunicated by almost every Christian leader in the known world, alone and in hiding, being hunted by the imperial army – moving from cave to cave in the Egyptian desert – with his friends and supporters being tortured to try to get them reveal his location - Athanasius wrote a book ‘On the incarnation’, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.html . It won the debate and Arians were pushed out of the church. It is a classic and still regarded by many as the best book ever written on the subject.

In the Nineteenth, century when theological liberalism first made its appearance in Britain, its most outspoken opponent was Charles Spurgeon – pastor, evangelist, the founder of the first mega-church and an ongoing favourite source of quotations for sermons. But most who quote him, don’t know Spurgeon’s passion to defend the gospel against liberalism – how he sacrificed his friends, his popularity and his membership of the Baptist Union in Britain to fight it. Faced with the problem of liberalism, the Baptist Union drew up a new Statement of faith to affirm its evangelical commitment. Although he agreed with the statement, he realised that it left too much ‘wriggle room’ for liberals to interpret it in such a way that they could also sign it – and wanted a statement that would exclude the liberals. Most didn’t see or understand his objections and he was defeated in a vote of 2000 to 7 at the Baptist Union General Assembly. Moderate Baptists said he had just become a grumpy old man and his actions were a result of his illness of gout. But Spurgeon was right, and the liberal wolves stayed in the Baptist Union and continued to spread their false teaching – sending it into spiritual decline. (The best book on this is ‘Forgotten Spurgeon by Iain H Murray).

In the 1920’s and 30’s when liberalism reached America, the man who stood most strongly against it was Gresham Machen, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary. At the time, Bible believers in the Presbyterian church were in the majority against the liberals, but sadly most of them were ‘moderates’ who sided politically with the liberals. Together, moderates and liberals signed the Auburn Affirmation promoting tolerance of liberal views. Upset by Machen’s divisive preaching against liberalism, when they heard Machen was to be promoted, the denominational authorities stepped to take over Princeton Seminary. In response, Machen founded Westminster Seminary, which continues the godly orthodox Biblical tradition that Princeton previously had. Machen, upset that church mission funds were being used to spread liberalism instead of the gospel, founded an Independent mission board to fund only true gospel based missions. At this, Machen and his supporters were brought to trial and expelled from the mainline Presbyterian Church in the USA. Many of those who expelled them were moderate Bible believers who simply thought that liberals should be tolerated as equals. Machen then founded the breakaway Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (The best book on Gresham Machen and his battle with liberalism is by Ned Stonehouse). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gresham_Machen

Mainline Presbyterianism continued to backslide into greater and greater error, while Westminster Seminary continued to produce a good crop of orthodox and influential Christian leaders. Just about every influential Christian leader promoting a Christian worldview in America is either a product of that seminary or has been influenced greatly by someone who is a graduate of that seminary. Students include Francis Schaeffer (worldviews), Gary North (economics), Wayne Mack (counselling). Lecturers include Cornelius van Til and Tim Keller. Those influenced by Schaeffer include Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Chuck Colson, Randall Terry, C. Everett Koop, Cal Thomas, and Tim and Beverly LaHaye; and scholars Os Guinness, Thomas Morris, Clark Pinnock, and Ronald Wells. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/march3/7t322a.html

Both Spurgeon and Machen died in their 50s mostly attributed to the extreme stress of the battles they fought against liberalism. Most couldn’t see the point of their fight, but their influence is lasting.

By the time liberalism had reached the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1970s, it had morphed into a different form called Neo-Orthodoxy. But again the same categories arose. ‘Liberals’ questioned the truth of scripture; ‘Moderates’ thought scripture was true, but we should allow people to teach otherwise and ‘Conservatives’ who thought the truth of scripture was worth fighting for. Two conservative leaders, Paige Patterson, a small Bible College professor and Paul Pressler, a lawyer fought first to appoint a conservative leader of the Southern Baptist Convention and then to appoint biblical conservatives to lead the seminaries that trained the ministers. While they faced much opposition and abuse from liberals and moderates who tried to stop them, the result was, with the Lord’s help, a return of the denomination to a belief in the reliability of the Bible. Unlike the most of the American mainline denominations which continued to decline, the Southern Baptist Convention has continued to grow and send missionaries around the world. (The best book on this battle is ‘A hill to die on’ by Paul Pressler.
A summary can be downloaded at: http://www.paigepatterson.info/documents/anatomy_of_a_reformation.pdf

FROM HISTORY TO TODAY

In all these four major controversies of church history, the main battle was not between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ but between ‘moderates’ and ‘conservatives’. It was between Bible believers who wished to tolerate wolves and those who did not. Such conflict between true believers is much more painful than conflict between those who are Bible believers and those who are false. But unfortunately, when those who truly believe the Bible decide to defend wolves and attack true shepherds who fight wolves, then they cause such division. The division can’t be blamed on the conservatives who fight to defend the truth of the gospel.

The apostle John says “2JN 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 2JN 1:11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work”. Thus according to the Bible, helping ungodly teachers is sharing in their work, which is wicked. That includes allowing them pulpit time or magazine space or broadcast air time.

Jesus rebuked the church at Thyatira for allowing the false teacher Jezebel REV 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

Today, in the Western world, our main problem is false Postmodern teachers who promote acceptance of homosexuality and other sexual compromises, who question truths such as eternal punishment, the fact that Jesus died in our place, and the virgin birth of Christ. We cannot give them space. If we truly love God, we must speak up against lies about God and protect the flock from wolves. We must silence those who teach falsely on matters that put peoples eternal salvation at risk, even if as with Athanasius of Alexandria (4th Century), Charles Spurgeon (19th Century), Gresham Machen (early 20th Century Presbyterian battle), Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler (late 20th century Baptist battle) before us, we are slandered, threatened and suffer for our stand.

What things are disputable, and what must we fight for?

2010-04-19T03:52:00.001-07:00

What things are disputable, and what must we fight for?

Postmodernists posing as Evangelical Christians have tried to open a debate on whether a Christian can be a homosexual. Some postmodernists advocate that a Christian can practice homosexuality. Some postmodernists such as Brian McLaren argue the church should, at least for the present, be silent on the issue. Other postmodernists don't believe a Christian can practice homosexuality, but argue that those who believe a Christian can practice homosexuality should be allowed to teach this. In other words, postmodernists in the church would like to shift the issue from the status of a 'serious heresy' to to be fought and silenced to a 'disputable issue', where we should be tolerant of others opinions in church. How tolerant should we be of such teaching? Dr Kevin Roy, pastor of Muldersdrift Union Church and former Principal of the Cape Town Baptist Seminary helps answer the question in the following article:

Philip Rosenthal

--------------------------------------------------------------------

What things are disputable, and what must we fight for?

By Dr Kevin Roy (First published in Baptists Today, Issue 4 2008)

The apostle Paul was a very liberal man in the area of legitimate differences between Christians. Whether to eat meat or not, whether one day is more holy than others, or not, his counsel was not to judge one another on such ‘disputable matters’, but rather respect one another. His own policy was to be a Jew to the Jews, a Greek to the Greeks, indeed, all things to all men, in order to win as many as possible. And he bent over backwards in order to promote peace and unity in the church, allowing a generous difference of opinion on secondary issues between believers. And we can follow his example in many areas today. Most of us have definite views about baptism, church government, the rapture, the millennium, election, predestination, tongues, prophecy – and that’s a short list – but we would not assign to hell those who differ from us. At least, I hope not. We recognize that many eminent servants of Christ who have been greatly blessed by God have differed on all these issues.

But Paul was fiercely inflexible when it came to the purity of the gospel and matters that affect our salvation. These are life and death issues, and must be fought for strenuously. To those who were seducing the Galatians from the gospel of grace and drawing them back into works religion he pronounced, “Let him be accursed.” And to emphasize his seriousness, he repeated, “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Knowing that without genuine repentance there can be no salvation; Paul took an equally strict and inflexible view of moral issues. “No immoral, impure or greedy person – such a man is an idolater – has any inheritance in the kingdom of God. Let no-one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes upon those who are disobedient.” To the Corinthians Paul spelled out explicitly those breaches of the moral law that would exclude a person from the kingdom of God: sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, homosexual practice, theft, greed, drunkenness, reviling, and swindling. Concerning these things there could be no toleration or debate. Those things that lead a person to eternal destruction are literally life and death issues. We must fight for people’s salvation and guard them against being deceived by plausible perversions of the truth.

Paul was not alone, of course, in this matter. All the apostles said the same thing. “No murderer has eternal life in him,” warned the apostle John. “The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practise magic arts, the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur,” he declared. Peter spoke of the destruction awaiting false prophets and false teachers who secretly introduce destructive heresies, and those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. The pattern in all the apostolic teaching is the same. Those teachings that lead a person away from the gospel of truth and into moral transgressions that bring destruction and condemnation must be resisted with all our might. People’s lives and eternal destiny depend on it.

It is clear from the above that all moral transgression is serious. But there is one sin that is warned against with almost monotonous regularity – sexual immorality. Perhaps because this is an area of special weakness for so many of us, and one in which we can be so easily deceived. Sexual sins condemned by God are clearly identified: fornication (sex outside the marriage bond), adultery (sex across the marriage line), homosexual acts (same gender sex), incest (sex with a close relation) and bestiality (sex with animals). In short, sex is the precious and sacred gift of God to be enjoyed within the marriage bond of a man and a woman. So sacred is this gift that the same word (know) is used for sex and the believer’s relationship with God.

For more than 3000 years there has been consensus in the above understanding of what constitutes sexual immorality. Today, that consensus is under serious attack, especially in the area of homosexual relations. It is argued that Scripture does not condemn homosexual relations if they are loving, monogamous (?) and lifelong. Only abusive homosexual relations, such as rape, pederasty and prostitution are condemned. Considerable ingenuity is used to reinterpret key biblical texts. Lev 18:22, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable,” is discounted on the grounds there are other OT texts forbidding clothes made of different materials, certain foods, planting different crops in one field and so on. This ignores the most basic rule of Bible interpretation, namely, that Christian believers under the New Covenant distinguish between moral laws, which are eternal and reaffirmed in the NT, and ceremonial and civil laws which apply only to the Old Covenant. Furthermore, Lev 18 does not only forbid same sex relations. It also condemns incest, adultery, child sacrifice, bestiality and concludes with the words, “do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.” Those who claim that Lev 18:22 is no more applicable today must logically argue the same for the rest of that chapter. (Please read Lev 18 for yourself.)

I mentioned that the moral law is expressly reaffirmed in the NT. This is certainly the case with the prohibition of same sex relations. In his opening chapter to the Romans Paul shows the universal sinfulness of human beings. Though they know God through creation, they turn aside to idolatry and folly. In judgement, God gives them over to shameful lusts. “Even their women exchanged the natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men.” It is claimed that ‘loving homosexual relations’ are not in view here, but what Paul had in mind was pederasty (sex with young boys). But Paul does not mention boys. He writes of men committing indecent acts with men. Similar ingenuity is used to claim that 1 Cor 6:9 does not have ‘loving, committed’ same sex relations in mind. But the word arsenokoitai comes from two words, arsen (male) and koite (lie) meaning ‘one who lies with a male.’ The allusion to Lev 18:22 is unavoidable. It is same sex relations that are here condemned, without any exceptions.

There can be no doubt that when the NT writers referred to sexual immorality they had a number of practices in mind, including same sex relationships. There is not even a hint, anywhere in the Bible, of a certain kind of homosexual relationship acceptable to God. Generations of Christian scholars and leaders would have been astonished at the very idea – the early church fathers, the Reformers of the 16th century, the 18th century Evangelical leaders. In fact, there is something rather arrogant in the idea that the whole church has got this one completely wrong for 2000 years. Only now, thanks to certain modern liberal scholars, do we know the truth.

Does this mean we must be nasty and hateful to homosexual offenders? On the contrary, we must love them sincerely and passionately. We must love them enough to warn them in the spirit of Ezek 33 “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. So you will hear a message from my mouth and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die,’ and you do not warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man will die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. But if you, on your part, warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life.” The apostle Paul could say, “I am free from the blood of all men,” because he had declared to them the whole counsel of God. Let us love our homosexual neighbours in the most sincere way possible and warn them not to be deceived into the way of death, but to turn into the way of life by genuine repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

IS THE BIBLE ‘LOST IN TRANSLATION’?

2010-03-26T05:53:00.001-07:00

26 March 2010

IS THE BIBLE ‘LOST IN TRANSLATION’?

We recently celebrated the victory of the pro-moral lobby in stopping the proposed DSTV porn channel. Indeed we should praise God for this. But there is a much bigger threat to sexual morality in South Africa which is behind our backs – the loss of faith in the Word of God on morality (especially sexuality). And that attack is coming from professing Christian leaders.

In our grandparents and parent’s generation, the question was whether the Bible is true. In our generation, the big debate is whether its meaning is clear. Two groups seemed to have sadly allied themselves in this attack on the clarity of scripture: Elitists and Postmodernists. Many evangelicals have incorporated Statements of Faith on the Truth of Scripture, but these defences are like the Maginot line, the line of earthen forts France constructed after the First World War to defend against another attack. They were broken in a day by panzer tanks. Most evangelical organisations stand defenceless against this new attack. And even Statements of Faith will not be enough alone because, these two groups will then question their clarity of meaning.

ELITISTS argue that ordinary people cannot be sure what the Bible means when they read it, so they need senior church authorities to interpret its meaning for them. And because ordinary people cannot interpret it for themselves, then they cannot hold church authorities accountable because those authorities decide what is right and wrong. Thus the senior authorities can never be wrong unless they admit being so themselves.

POSTMODERNISTS argue that since our culture is so different to the culture when the Bible was written and all words have embedded cultural meaning, then we cannot be sure that the meaning we give to the words are the same as the meaning the writer gave to the words. It is ‘lost in translation’. At best we are guessing. And if we are not sure what the Bible means, then we have no right to enforce our guesses on everyone else.

So these two groups look very different, but are natural allies - and they are not limited to any particular denomination. Included in the ‘ELITISTS’, are many of the most senior and visible public figures in Christianity in South Africa – including many who speak up publicly for morality. They would be unlikely to express their elitist and authoritarian views in public, but if anyone tries to challenge double standards in their ministries, that how they respond. And so for example, if one pushes them to expose and publicly rebuke a church sex sandal on the basis of 1 Timothy 5:20 (“Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.”), then such Elitists will ask who decides what this scripture means. To everyone else the meaning is obvious. Rebuke means Rebuke. Public means public. But to these Elitists, they are the only ones who can decide what it means. On this basis they can then avoid answering what it means and thus avoid obeying it. And they will then rather deal with the scandal quietly behind closed doors instead. Does this matter? Yes it does, and it matters even more than Porn on Television, because when sin is protected among senior leadership, their ungodly behaviour is contagious and spreads through the church. People copy what they do more than what they say. And the Holy Spirit, offended by such compromise, withdraws as he did in the days of Eli (1 Samuel 3). As another example, ELITISTS may give a public appearance of loyalty to scripture, but behind the scenes try to protect false teaching. And if any ordinary church member tries to challenge them, they get the same answer: None of your business – its confidential. Theological debates are for senior leaders only. Shut up and go away.

Most POSTMODERNISTS are younger and without senior positions in any organisational structure. Although few know it, their beliefs derive much from the linguistic philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. For example, when asked on their views on homosexuality, many will look at the obvious prohibitions (e.g. Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27), then they will try and argue that there were cultural issues involved that are no longer relevant. For example, they will argue the real sin problem at Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, but lack of hospitality. Or they will argue that the Bible is not condemning all homosexuality but only homosexual abuse of minors. Now any ordinary Christian can just open their Bible, read the text and understand plainly what it means, but Postmodernists use intellectual cultural and linguistic gymnastics to try to distort this plain meaning. Others, less radical will still hold a view against homosexuality, but they anchor their belief in our modern Christian culture rather than the scripture. So then if the majority of Christian culture was to follow the radical postmodernists, these people would then follow behind them. They cannot defend truth from the Bible, because their minds are in a confused postmodern fog. Other more moderate postmodernists, will say that they believe the Bible says it is wrong but for the sake of ‘tolerance’ (a principal postmodern virtue), we should allow these people to preach and publish their false teaching alongside truth in Church and Christian publications. Thus they deny the duty Christ gives to good spiritual shepherds to protect the flock from wolves who lead people astray (John 10; Titus 1:9). Postmodernists will also tell us Christians cannot tell non-Christians to repent of their sexual sin, because that would be imposing our culture on them (contrary to Ezekiel 3:18).

Why are these two groups natural allies? Because if one takes the Post-modern assumption that the meaning of scripture is unclear on matters necessary for salvation and the Christian life, then how does one impose order in the Church? Will one not end up with chaos? Won’t it be like allowing people to choose whether to drive on the left hand side of the road or the right? Won’t we get lots of crashes and conflict? The only alternative is that order is imposed arbitrarily from an elite. And there is a church Elite which likes to do that job.

Further if we have an Elite which likes power and doesn’t want to be accountable to anyone below them, then how do they escape accountability to scripture quoted by ordinary members? Answer: By denying the obvious meaning of scripture. And how do they justify that? By borrowing the convenient postmodern argument that scripture is unclear.

Okay, so how do Orthodox Bible believing Christians defend our position on the Clarity of Scripture? Are there not many things that Bible believing theologians don’t agree on. Yes. That is true. The Bible doesn’t make all truths equally clear. Many truths in the Bible are for example veiled behind metaphors (Deuteronomy 29:29; Romans 11:33) and there are minor differences in meaning in individual texts between different Bible translations.

1. The things that are critically important to our moral life and salvation God has stated plainly and repeatedly in many different places in scripture. Furthermore, all of scripture fits together into an interlocking logical whole. Thus even if some translator was to misunderstand the meaning of the original language or culture in one verse, for the issues which are critically important, there are many other verses which will tell us the same thing.

2. Jesus has given the Holy Spirit to help ordinary believers who read the Bible with the intent to obey it, the supernatural help to understand it. He has not offered that to intellectuals who enjoy theological debates, but don’t want to obey it (Matthew 11:25; John 16:13).

3. The Law of Moses, the book of Deuteronomy follows the format of an ancient constitution imposed by a conquering King on a vassal king. In the ancient world, such treaties were always translated and the conquering King expected the vassal people to obey it even though they were reading a translation in a different language. Likewise, God knew the Bible would be translated into many languages and across many cultures. This is why for example the poetry of the Psalms sounds beautiful in every language. Postmodernists should not be allowed to hide behind the ‘lost in translation’ argument.

The Reformers put the Clarity of Scripture in this way in the Westminster Confession of Faith “VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

I argue that the attack on the clear meaning of scripture by ELITISTS and POSTMODERNISTS in the church is a bigger threat to sexual morality than is the spread of pornography on the internet and television. Against these evils, we have the powerful Word of God to fight back, but if we the church accept the devil’s lie that the meaning of scripture is unclear on basic issues of the Christian life, like sexual behaviour, then the devil has disarmed us. He has taken away our sword. We have no weapon to fight back. He will tempt us to try fight with some other worldly weapon like trying to make the Christian faith popular and acceptable. But these worldly weapons are useless toys in spiritual warfare. This was the mistake made by liberal and moderate moralists in the 1920s and 30s. They went on various crusades to clean up society by organising church unity pronouncements on various issues – for example supporting the prohibition on alcohol. They may have done a bit of good, but they lost the battle on scripture – and once this battle was lost, the church itself became corrupt, backslid with the culture and ceased to be salt and light in society. But the Bible is not ‘Lost in translation’ across different cultures and languages.

The Word of God is true and it’s meaning on issues of salvation and morality is clear across cultures and languages. And it is on the basis of this true and clear Word of God that we must spiritually protect ourselves and fearlessly call all men to repentance from sin and holiness of life.

ARE YOU DOING YOUR PART IN THE CULTURE WAR?

2010-02-19T02:51:00.000-08:00

ARE YOU DOING YOUR PART IN THE CULTURE WAR?

Most Christians think of our responsibility primarily as our personal relationship with God, our close relatives and our involvement in the local church. While these things are important, we have to consider our responsibility to the rest of society. Why? Firstly because, God is sovereign over all of life including the arts, media, government, education, business and healthcare. Secondly, because our lives, families and church can’t be isolated from these – either we influence them with Biblical virtues and truth or they influence us with worldly values and false beliefs.

Whether your children and grandchildren will grow up Christian depends not just on what you say, but also on what they hear at school and what they see on television. Whether we like it or not, we are in the middle of an ideological culture war in every institution in our society. If we ignore the war, we will just be blown around by the winds of popular culture – and might end up even helping the enemy without realising it.

The dominant ideology in the Western world right now is ‘Postmodernism’ – a belief that there is no absolute truth, therefore feelings and relationships are important, while truth and righteousness is not. In black Africa, animism is a powerful influence. In North Africa and the Middle East, Islam is dominant – and while seeks to spread south into Africa and North into Europe. The news media tends to only cover conflict where there is open bloodshed, but the major war is happening in peoples minds and what become socially acceptable in our culture. Wherever we lose the war, those cultural norms become enshrined in civil law and Christians will either have to compromise or suffer persecution. Evangelism will be curtailed, the Bible will be marginalised out of schools and replaced with ‘sex sin education’, we won’t be able to go anywhere without seeing public pornography on billboards or magazine covers. Certain professions, such as nursing will become impossible for Christians to practice, because of the requirement to assist with abortions. Some may say this sounds alarmist, but it is already the case in some Postmodern countries and the pressure of such persecution and anti-Christian influence has already advanced a long way in South Africa. To resist persecution, we therefore have no choice but to fight to defend our freedoms and for godly Christian influence. This influence is not however just a benefit to us Christians, but to the whole of society.

The culture war would be simple, if it was just the church versus the world, but it is much more complex. On the positive side, opinion polls in South Africa show the vast majority of all citizens supporting Christian rather than postmodern values. (See for example: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/HSRC_Review_Article-83.phtml ). On the negative side, many more educated South African Christians have been tragically influenced by postmodernism and while they may have personal faith in Christ, their thinking and actions actually help the wrong side. They have been deceived and their minds taken captive by unbiblical ideas.

In every generation, there is pressure for the believing community to accommodate worldly culture. In Old Testament times, the pressure was to accommodate idolatry and child sacrifice. In the ancient world and renaissance, the pressure was to accommodate the ideas of popular Greek philosophers. In African culture, it is to accommodate ancestor worship and superstitions. In Europe, Liberal Modernism, the idea of making Christianity more ‘scientific’ and denying the miraculous began in Germany in the 1850s. In two generations, it gutted and emptied the churches in that country and left a vacuum that allowed the rise of Nazi ideology in its place. The Western allies, who were mostly of Christian worldview at the time, won the military battle, but they lost the theological and ideological battle. Liberal Modernism spread from Germany first across the rest of Europe, then to England and then to America. Wherever liberalism went, churches thought they were advancing because they got the approval of popular culture, but in the next generation the churches emptied. Most of the old Protestant denominations went liberal and Biblical Christians were forced to form new denominations. But as the culture kept changing, liberalism like a computer virus had to keep changing to keep up with the times. As belief in ‘science’ as a solution to all the worlds problems waned, popular culture went on to new ideas like ‘political correctness’ and postmodernism. So the liberal theologians kept changing their message to keep up with the culture. The latest version, accommodating postmodernism calls itself ‘the emerging church’. The result of it, will however be the same as the old liberalism: compromised, but popular Christianity, which ceases to be salt and light in the world or convert unbelievers to Christ.

Cultural and ideological movements tend to follow a geographic pattern of spreading from Europe, to Britain, to America and then to South Africa and then north up Africa. They also tend to follow an academic pathway within the English speaking world of starting with top intellectuals at places like Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Princeton and then spreading from there to the top universities in other countries (e.g. Cape Town and Witwatersrand in South Africa) and then to the rest of the universities. They then spread from top academic works to more popular books, then on to film and finally to television. It also sadly tends to flow from these pagan universities into Christian theological faculties at the same universities, from where it flows to lesser universities theology departments, then to other Bible Colleges and from there if we don’t stop it to the pulpit of your local church.

Is this just an academic bloodless war? No. The loss of Biblical Christian influence, resulting in a loss of value for human life in Europe, led to its most bloody century in history with the First and Second world wars plus the carnage of Communism. Almost a million innocent babies murdered already in South Africa as a result of postmodern ideology in our government and hospitals. We have successfully fought off attempts to move to legalise euthanasia of the sick – but if we don’t fight hard – for how long. The war for the mind comes first – then if we lose real bloodshed follows.

How is the South African church doing in this culture war? Sadly not well. Most of the older denominations ministering to the middle class population have already been over-run by postmodern liberalism. They are in death phase. Many even tolerate homosexuals in the pulpit. People stay because of family loyalty but they win few new converts because few ministers still preach the true Gospel of Christ – and so they are likely to continue to shrink to insignificance. Some publicly supported legal abortion. The South African Council of Churches, acting without a mandate, supported the legalisation of Same-Sex Marriage, but few protested against this. Another kind of cultural liberalism is undermining the newer Charismatic churches – not one of liberal theology, but of tolerating ungodly behaviour in leadership, which is not disciplined and then gets copied in the pews. Sadly, the vast majority of Christians and local churches operate as if there was no culture war underway – they simply don’t fight – and that is why we are losing.

Many Christians say that they won’t do evil themselves, but neither will they speak up against the evil in the society around them. This strategy is a losing one. We are social beings. We don’t live in isolation. We are influenced and we influence. In the Old Testament the Israelites were commanded to drive out the pagan Canaanites (Joshua 23:12-13). When they failed to do so, they were corrupted by them and fell into idolatry. In the New Covenant, we don’t fight people, but we do fight ideas (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). The same will be true of us if we make peace with the pagan culture around us - we either fight it or are corrupted by it. We are in a war whether we like it or not and we must fight or lose the war.

Another question is whether we can actually win? Or are we just doomed to fail and accept defeat? We can draw hope from history, where many times Christians have repented of their backsliding and moved onto the offensive of social reform, such as the Evangelical Awakening in Britain led by men like John Wesley and William Wilberforce outlawed slavery. We can see how tiny Christian minorities with faith in God, like the new born Salvation Army led the fight to outlaw prostitution in Britain in the 1890s and then spread their campaign to win even as an even tinier minority in Japan! We can be encouraged by the victory of conservative evangelicals against liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention in American. Yes we can win!

A common question is why do we keep worrying about homosexuals, when they are such a minority? Surely there are more common and equally evil sins to worry about? The answer is because in the culture war, our most militant and well organised opponents of Christian virtues are the homosexual activist lobby. Such people are a tiny minority and even among homosexuals, the activists are an even tinier minority, but these people make up for their lack of numbers through good organisation, leadership and networking with other non-homosexuals and virulent hostility in the culture war against Christian values, for example in HIV-AIDS education, the law courts, political parties and attempts to infiltrate the church. Adulterers by comparison do not organise themselves and actively attack Christianity and family values or initiate lawsuits against Christians in this way. Homosexual lobby groups actions tend to influence the rest of heterosexual society, for example in the promotion of condoms rather than purity as a solution to HIV AIDS and in countries where marriage has been redefined to include same-sex marriage, heterosexual marriage has dropped as well. It is the area where there is the greatest cultural pressure to accept sin.

What can you do to help win this culture war? Firstly, think about how to protect yourself and your family and your church from evil in the surrounding culture. Think about how the worldly ideologies on television or at school may be influencing you and your family. Secondly, learn about the ideologies which are competing so that you can give a good defence. Thirdly, think about how your actions at work, church or in everyday interaction with people impact on the rest of society. Fourthly, pray for God to show you opportunities where you can make a difference.

DOES POSTMODERNISM DELIVER BETTER RELATIONSHIPS?

2009-10-02T03:17:00.000-07:00

DOES POSTMODERNISM DELIVER BETTER RELATIONSHIPS?

The main selling point of Postmodernism is the promise of better relationships through ‘tolerance’ and sensitivity to feelings together with the argument that worldviews based on absolute truth lead to conflict. Biblical Christianity is put in the same box as the Taliban. Postmodern or Emergent Christianity, which downplays doctrine and focuses on feelings and relationships is cool in this new culture. You are welcome to believe whatever you like so long as you don’t insist it is absolutely true and expect others to follow the same belief or practice. This new spirit of ‘tolerance’ it is hoped will stop religious wars internationally and conflict within the church. The promise appeals to a growing generation of broken, angry and hurting youth, whose parents no longer share the same house. Western individualism and mobility between cities and continents has created a crisis of loneliness. The pain enters our churches. While Christianity is maligned in the media for being ‘intolerant’, we can be accepted if we just adapt to the new culture and downplay those parts of the Bible which offend it. Is this the answer? To realise their dream, however, Postmodernists in and outside the church need to silence those nuisance Christians who think truth and righteousness also matter. “We will not tolerate intolerance” they say.

Firstly, is Postmodern teaching on relationships Biblical? Well open the Bible randomly on any page and you will likely find something on relationships. So this must be biblical then? But is what the Bible teaches about relationships the same as what Postmodernism is teaching about relationships? No. While the Bible does teach a lot on relationships, what it says has only a small area of overlap with Postmodernism – mostly the two ideologies contradict each other. The Bible does not hope to resolve relational problems by downplaying truth and righteousness, while emphasising relationship and feelings, but rather by keeping these two sides integrated and in balance.

Secondly, is it working practically? In the past two decades, Postmodernism has become the dominant ideology of the Western world. Are relationships getting better as a result? No. Statistics show increasing family breakdown. Are relationships getting better in those countries which were the first and most radical in adopting Postmodern ideology e.g. the Netherlands and Scandinavia? No. These cutting edge Postmodern countries show the number of people getting married dropping by about 2% per year. They are becoming nations of fragmented individuals in disposable relationships. Homosexuality is increasing. Children born out of wedlock are becoming the norm. Has Postmodern influence in the church helped heal relationships? Sadly, sociological statistical studies by the Barna group show divorce rates in the church higher than those in the world. The statistics are partly skewed because more Christians are getting married. This alone should warn us the ideology is not working. Did the older traditional Biblical Christianity held to for most of the last two thousand years have this problem of mass marriage failure inside the church? No. But Postmodernism’s lie of the promise of better relationships through ‘tolerance’ and blaming of Biblical Christianity as ‘harsh narrow minded insensitive intolerant bigotry’ repeated often enough - eventually gets believed.

THE BIBLICAL ALTERNATIVE

How then does Biblical teaching differ from Postmodernism and what is it’s alternative solution? The Bible has so much to say on relationship that one can only touch on a few key points of difference here. We all live in a matrix of multiple issues and multiple relationships – with conflicts between them and we have to make choices on what to do and say. Where there are conflicts for our loyalty and effort, how do we decide what issues and relationships to prioritise? How do we decide what to fight about and what to just tolerate?

Firstly, the Bible, unlike Postmodernism gives a hierarchy of importance for our loyalty and responsibility in relationships. First comes God, then other men (Matthew 22:37-40; Luke 14:24). Out of relationships with other men, first comes our spouse (with whom we are ‘one flesh’) (Ephesians 5:22-33), then our children, then our extended family (1 Timothy 5:4-8), then our church community (1 Timothy 5:16) and then the rest of the world. Postmodernism ignores this hierarchy. Mostly treats God as if he is there for our convenience and prioritises getting along smoothly with everyone rather than this hierarchy of important relationships. Thus if you try to persuade someone not to divorce, Postmodernists would see that as interference and harming relationship. A Postmodernist may rationalise that a married couple may be happier apart. Rather shut up and be tolerant they would say. Our first priority is our relationship with God, even if this might offend some other people. Thus Postmodernism really ends up in more fragmented families and a neglected relationship with God - its promise is false and does not deliver.

Secondly, in Biblical Christianity, unlike ‘Postmodern emergent Christianity’, our relationship with God is based on believing truth about God, rather than by inventing a mental image of God the way we would like him to be. God’s glory is revealed in the truth about him in the Bible. We worship him for his glorious attributes. The bestselling Postmodern book, ‘The Shack’ by William Young describes an imaginary encounter by the lead character with the three persons of the Trinity. Problem is that the God portrayed is not the God of scripture and many other misguided Christians seem to be claiming relationship with God, while their personal lives don’t match up to the holiness God requires (Hebrews 12:14) and their ideas about God don’t match scripture. If someone was to start telling lies about your wife or your best friend, would you not immediately want to correct them? How then can a person claim to love God, who will happily tolerate false teaching about God? Truth and love are not separable, but our love for God drives us to learn truth and to defend the truth about him. Postmodernist Christians however would argue that out of love for people, we should tolerate heresy. Speaking strongly against heresy is unloving they would say. But the Bible teaches we should prioritise love for God first. Thus this more relational Christianity tends to result in false relationship with God. It doesn’t deliver.

Thirdly, the Bible gives an absolute and clear standard of right and wrong by which we can judge truth. Thus when there are disagreements, and we both accept the authority of Bible we can try to study it together to try to settle our disagreements. The new Postmodern emergent Christianity argues that the meaning of the Bible is subjective and based on our personal biases and thus it is impossible to settle disputes this way. The result is that we must then just all live independently and ‘tolerate’ eachother (as Postmodernists prefer) or alternatively through organisational process. The problem however is that organisational processes are also impacted by Postmodernist belief. If truth doesn’t really matter, then why should any organisation follow their own constitution or Statement of Faith? And if everything is subjective, then how do we interpret the meaning of these? Every organisation has to have order or it falls apart. But what will that order be based on? Without an objective standard of right and wrong or of agreed procedure, the only way to impose order is through an elite. And that is what happens when the scripture and objective truth is sidelined. Nations and churches become governed by unaccountable elites. It is impossible in a conflict to keep good relations with everyone and so where there is no objective standard for truth and righteousness, elites will dominate and squash opposition. The Bible interpreted as clear and objective truth on the other hand give a basis on which any individual can argue, without leading to social chaos. National policy decisions are increasingly being made by unaccountable Postmodern judicial elites and less by democratic process. Likewise as ‘relational governance’ displaces objective standards in churches, elites take over regardless of the denomination. Such arbitrary elitist governance tends to benefit a few and hurt people. Thus the Postmodern promise of better relationships doesn’t deliver.

God’s moral boundaries are given for our good (Deuteronomy 10:13) and respecting them results in better relationships. His laws are not just there to help us to score religious points – they make practical common sense. Jesus encourages us to set further personal boundaries against things that cause us to sin (Matthew 5:29). Nevertheless, Postmodernists would tend to treat such boundaries as unimportant, with resulting damage to relationships. For example, the young man who exposes himself to sexual images in movies will likely struggle more with temptation to go too far in his dating relationships with the opposite sex. Compromising, however will damage a good relationship and undermine his future marriage relationship.

Fourthly, based on this truth, Biblical Christianity sees some relationships such as sexual relationships outside married as just plain evil. But muddled Postmodern Christians may for example argue that a homosexual couple are just so happy together – so how can we say that it is wrong? Superficially, they may seem happy – but probably over they longer term the result will be pain. And even if they did happen to be more happy, for us the authority is the Bible and not just social peace and happiness.

Fifthly, the Bible gives categories of standards of righteousness, some of which are absolute for all people and all time (.e.g. You shall not murder’); others which have some value but are not absolute (.e.g. observing of special days (Romans 14)). It also, however allows for an intermediate standard where church authorities may agree to make certain temporary rules applicable to that time and situation. For example, in Acts 15:29 the church prohibited eating food sacrificed to idols, while 1 Corinthians 8:1-7, categorises it as a debatable issue. Absolute issues we fight about, (e.g. sexual purity; the sanctity of human life) while debatable issues we need to make decisions depending on the context. Postmodernism would argue nothing is completely absolute and put everything in the category of either individual choice or a group cultural norm. Thus they would frown on Christians trying to stop non-Christians aborting babies or close down escort agencies. Such action is ‘insensitive to their feelings and creates a bad image for Christianity’ they would say. This view may lead to smoother relations between the Christian community and the secular media and institutionalised evil, but it hurts the relationships of parents with the babies they kill and families torn apart by the infidelity of prostitution. Thus the Postmodern promise of better relationships is a lie. It doesn’t deliver.

Sixthly, the Bible gives a description of due process to deal with and settle disputes for example in Matthew 18; Matthew 5 and 1 Timothy 5. Organisations also have their own procedures to settle disputes. But when ‘relationships and feelings’ are prioritised out of balance with truth, then procedure is only applied when it is convenient for those in power. Insisting on doing so is seen as legalistic. The result is that disputes are settled in an ad-hoc manner which usually gets very messy and painful. Not obeying scriptural procedure thus results in more relational pain. The Postmodern promise doesn’t deliver.

Seventh, the Bible gives us the expectation that if we are godly, we will suffer persecution including social ostracism and abuse (1 Peter 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:12). Nevertheless, Postmodern Christians want to be accepted by the world and the result is to avoid doing whatever the world disapproves of. So for example they avoid confronting people with the need to repent of their sins and receive Christ and speaking up against social sin in society – rather simply trying to ‘build relationships’ in the hope that someone somehow will decide that Christians are nice and they want to join them. Maybe this will lead to some superficial peace between the church and the world, but such an approach leads to very few if any conversions – and thus the masses live in unreconciled relationship with God – not knowing what to do to reconcile with God. Furthermore, sin in society, when not confronted grows and spreads, wreaking relational damage in the individuals and families it affects.

Eighth, we as Christians have a corporate as well as an individual relationship with God. In other words, God deals with us not just as individuals, but also judges and blesses us as nations (Romans 11) and churches (Revelation 2-3). As individuals we are affected by God’s corporate judgments and sin in our church and society will indirectly affect how God treats us. Thus we need to use our influence to persuade the group of which we are a part to obey God and live according to his standards. We have a corporate responsibility to ensure correct church discipline especially where there is scandalous leadership behaviour. We must speak up for righteousness lest we be judged ourselves as part of the group. Postmodernists, however baulk at the whole idea of God judging groups for their sins. How politically incorrect can you get? But it is Biblical. Where a group rebels against God, one of the common judgements is that God causes conflict within that group (Zechariah 8:10). Thus while Postmodernism may deliver temporary smooth relationships, God’s judgment on the sin of the group will ultimately do more harm to relationships.

CONCLUSION

Thus the Postmodern promise of better relationships is false and a lie. Hopefully, eventually society will wake up and realise this, just as after the Cold War they woke up to realise that the Communist promise of helping the poor was a lie. But until they do that, we as Christians need to confront and change this muddled thinking in the church and recover Biblical Christian thinking on relationships. We need to prioritise our relationships according to the Bible; base or relationship with God on the truth of the scriptures; use the absolute standards of right and wrong in the scriptures to settle disputes; reject evil unbiblical relationships; distinguish between categories of standards of right and wrong so we don’t fight about the wrong things; follow biblical due process to settle disputes; be prepared to suffer persecution for righteousness to help reconcile others with God and do our part to encourage holiness and corporate relationship with God. All of this is contrary to Postmodernist ethics. But it is the Biblical way of better relationships – and unlike Postmodernism it does deliver better relationships.

Yes, postmodern ‘tolerance’ and ‘sensitivity to feelings’ may result in temporary superficial smooth relationships, but overall it does more harm than good.

Since the promise better relationships is the main argument being used to push Postmodernism in the church and attack Biblical Christianity – we need to not just respond to the need for truth, but also warn other Christians how Postmodern thinking actually hurts rather than helps relationships.

SHOULD WE USE COURT ROOM LANGUAGE? REVERSING THE EVANGELICAL MEGA-SHIFT

2009-10-02T03:15:00.000-07:00

SHOULD WE USE COURT ROOM LANGUAGE? REVERSING THE EVANGELICAL MEGA-SHIFT

The way we evangelicals present the gospel has shifted radically in the last 30 years. Before the gospel presentation always included judicial/legal language such as: judgment, law, covenant, truth, justification, vindication, truth, evidence, forgiveness, redemption, confession, punishment, witnesses and testimony. Today, the language tends to be exclusively relational for example: love, reconciliation and becoming part of God’s family. One could summarise the shift from a ‘court room model’ to a ‘family living room model’. Is this good or bad? Well, surely, given the choice, most of use would prefer a ‘family living room’ to a ‘court room’. Why does this matter to the average Christian? Firstly, because it is affecting the way we present the message of salvation and secondly the way we engage with worldly society.

Which of the two models is Biblical? There is plenty of evidence for both in the Bible. The problem is the shift in emphasis – and in many cases the shift is so big that judicial language, which was formerly the main way of explaining the gospel is avoided as ‘politically incorrect’. What is unbiblical is the neglect of the court room model. Why am I, a Christian social activist writing on this subject? Because a new generation is growing up which has not grasped many of the basic building blocks of truth, essential to engage with sin in society. Such people have a hard time understanding why we should do anything that may offend non-Christians, such as picketing abortion clinics or sex shops.

Abandonment or neglect of the court room model is a feature of Postmodern/Emergent reinterpretation of Christianity, but the shift was underway long before Postmodernism became popular. The problem thus cannot be solved just by attacking Postmodernism. The court room model is also unpopular with many of those who focus on self-image & psychology, health and wealth, political correctness – some who believe the ‘court room model’ is not ‘seeker sensitive’. Our culture hates the judicial model. To get a hearing, we need to a certain extent to adapt our message to the culture of our times, but some things we cannot give up. Why?

Because the central message of the cross cannot be properly explained without the model of a court room. Without it, Jesus death and resurrection are a bit meaningless. We, the human race sinned and broke God’s law and deserved everlasting punishment in hell. Jesus, God’s perfect substitute, died in our place, which is why we qualify for God’s grace and mercy. On another level, both the Jewish and Gentile human government authorities condemned Jesus to death for his claim to be King/Messiah, but God’s higher court over-ruled this wrong judgement and vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead – thus proving his innocence. We who tell this truth that Jesus is alive and Lord are called ‘witnesses’ who ‘testify’ – both terms borrowed from the court room. So many people have died telling this truth that our English word ‘martyr’ is derived from the Greek word for ‘witness’. The way every human being on earth will be judged in eternity is all tied up with what they believe and confess in this one massive cosmic court case.

Apart from court room language, one can maybe talk about aspects of the cross such as Jesus reconciliation with us or Jesus good example of love for his enemies demonstrated from the cross for us to follow. Most preachers who neglect court room language do understand these truths. But will the next generation understand? And will they understand well enough to be willing to be ‘witnesses’ who will die for the truth? On a smaller scale to risk unpopularity and share the shame and disgrace of being a witness for Jesus in a generation that hates the truth? Will they have the courage to accuse our government and society of murder in their slaughter of the unborn innocents, as did the apostles when they accused the Roman and Jewish authorities of murdering Jesus (Acts 3:15; 5:28)? Are we going to preach God’s wrath against sin to a Postmodern generation that doesn’t understand the concept of sin? Will we pursue holiness as we treasure the price paid for us by Christ (1 Peter 1:18-19), or will we view grace instead as meaning that God doesn’t think sin is a big deal. Neglecting judicial language is going to affect our holiness, our courage, our view of Christ and God, our understanding of grace, our gospel presentation to unbelievers, our worldview, our social activism and our motivation to reach the lost. Please lets help restore judicial language to our teaching and gospel presentation.

The new mega-shifted evangelical gospel, hopes that its ‘kinder, gentler, more loving’ view of God will be more attractive and thus win more to Christ. It will improve the bad image that the worldly media has given Christianity. But will it really do so? Didn’t Jesus say the world would hate us (John 15:19) and praise false prophets (Luke 6:26). Such people struggle with a ‘self-image problem’ about Christianity. They have a ‘court room model’, but in their view, the world (or the secular media) or public opinion is the judge instead of God the ultimate judge. Which ‘court room’ will we worry about? Will we fear God and his judgement against unrepentant individuals in eternity in hell or on this earth against a society that rebels against God, by for example murdering unborn babies – or will we worry about trying to help Christianity win the media contest to become the most popular religion?

Is a ‘kinder, gentler’ mega-shifted gospel more compassionate to help hurting people? In some senses, maybe. Maybe in the short term some people will avoid getting annoyed by the truth. But sin still brings God’s judgement, whether hell for eternity or in society now. Fewer people may be offended by the message, but those same people will still be hurt by consequences of sin. And in any case, regardless of the results of each, the gospel is not meant to be pragmatic – we are called to proclaim truth (Ezekiel 3:17). In Old Testament times, the false prophets were also preaching ‘peace’ and neglecting the message of judgment on sin (Jeremiah 6:14).

We need a balance of gentleness and toughness and wisdom to know what is appropriate in what situation. God’s self revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai included his compassion and his judgment of sin (Exodus 34:6-7). His revelation on the cross included his wrath against sin by the punishment of crucifixion and his mercy to us in substituting Jesus in our place. The judicial court room model perfectly explains this paradox.

WHAT EVIDENCE DO WE HAVE FOR THIS MEGA-SHIFT?

A popular example of this mega-shifted unbalanced gospel presentation is found in the poem ‘The father’s Love Letter’. http://www.fathersloveletter.com/text.html . It seems orthodox, because it is made up almost entirely of paraphrased Bible verses and full of references. It sounds beautiful. What is wrong? Firstly, if you look up the scripture quotations and read them in context, you will see the paraphrases are often inaccurate and the context doesn’t match the message of the poem. If you read on in the references, you will also see references to God’s judgment – but not in the poem. The second problem is that the statements paraphrased in the poem are made in the Bible to believers, who have already received Christ and become children of God (and thus part of God’s family). But the poem blurs the distinction between believers and unbelievers, giving the impression the same statement apply to both. Most of the promises quoted from the Bible are conditional on receiving Jesus on the basis of his dying in our place as a substitute (the courtroom model). While the poem may give some comfort to believers, it may also give false comfort to those who have not repented of their sins.

WHY COURT ROOM LANGUAGE NEEDS TO COME BACK TO THE CENTRE OF THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE

For those who want to study the history of the intellectual debate in more detail, the following links may be helpful:

In 1990, theologian Robert Brow published an article in Christianity Today, describing the Mega-Shift away from the ‘Court Room/judicial’ model http://www.brow.on.ca/Articles/Megashift.html towards the ‘family/relational model’. The article was phrased to sound a neutral description of a trend, but Brow showed by his other publications that he strongly supported this new trend. Soon other scholars responded for and against the new trend. Donald Carson, Michael Horton and David Wells strongly opposed it, and defended the historic court room model. John McArthur responded to the undermining of the atonement at http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0103.htm A surprise for many was when Clark Pinnock, a previous champion of conservative orthodoxy against liberalism came to Brow’s support. Robert Brow and Clark Pinnock worked together to develop their new theories further. Eventually, their theorizing led them to the conclusion that God doesn’t exhaustively know the future, but rather can only take a good guess at what is going to happen on the basis of the balance of probabilities. They called their new theory ‘Open theism’ and together they published a book ‘Unbounded Love’ available online at http://www.brow.on.ca/Books/ULove/ULIntro.htm . Pinnock was interviewed by Michael Horton about his shift in views in an opposing publication at http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=issuedisplay&var1=IssRead&var2=26
Later writer, Philip Yancey promoted a similar view in a less intellectual, but more popular style.

The most heavyweight intellectuals in Evangelicalism have historically been Reformed/Calvinists, since this tradition tends to emphasise truth. These men focused their counter-attack on this undermining of the Sovereignty of God. Together they replied with a book ‘Beyond the bounds’ with John Piper as the main editor, and a list of respected other authors each contributing a chapter, which is also available online at http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/OnlineBooks/ByTitle/2397_Beyond_the_Bounds/
Piper et al, argued that Open Theism was heresy and that the boundaries of evangelicalism needed to be redrawn to exclude it. There was an attempt to remove Open Theists from the Evangelical Theological Society, but this failed. Piper, Carson and similar reformed thinkers later formed the ‘Gospel Coalition’, whose Statement of Faith specifically excluded Open Theism. In the book, Wayne Grudem argues that Open Theism is pastorally dangerous because a weak view of God undermines people’s faith.

A bunch of world-class Bible scholars have written a 400 page book – for sale in many Christian bookshops and available for free download. Robert Brow has died. So is the debate closed? Not at all. I argue the primary debate has been side-tracked. The trend away from ‘Courtroom language’ that Robert Brow was the first to spot and write about has become mainstream and now dominates most of Evangelicalism. Brow, Pinnock and their followers took their vision of a ‘kinder, gentler’ gospel to an extreme that ended up with a denial of God’s sovereign control and foreknowledge of the future. But millions of evangelicals have not gone to that extreme, but they do squirm and evade the Courtroom model and terminology in presenting the gospel – the place where Brow and Pinnock started. And so what is considered normal evangelicalism is very different to what it was 50 years ago.

I argue that the original debate of whether the gospel should be presented using the ‘Court room/judicial’ model needs to come back to the centre. It is an issue that faces every church. I argue both Court Room language and Family language are biblical, but that the Court Room/judicial model should be central because without it we cannot properly understand why Christ died for us on the cross. This understanding then impacts how we view just about everything else. The neglect of the Court Room model I believe explains much of the weakness and confusion in contemporary evangelicalism.

SHOULD WE EVER JUDGE OR CONDEMN?

2009-08-25T10:11:00.001-07:00

SHOULD WE EVER JUDGE OR CONDEMN?

Have you heard a someone quote “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) or “If any one of you is without sin, let him throw the first stone.” (John 8:7) to argue that we should not speak up against evils like abortion, pornography or homosexuality? Quoted out of context, these are the two favourite verses of those trying to change Christianity to fit in with Post-modernist culture. If you haven’t heard these quoted to advance Postmodernist ‘tolerance’ of evil, you will soon, and Biblical Christian leaders need to equip their followers to counter Post-modern interpretation of these verses.

WHAT DOES “DO NOT JUDGE, OR YOU TOO WILL BE JUDGED” MEAN?

Did Jesus mean these words as an absolute? Did he mean we should never ever judge or condemn anything or speak up against the sins of our society? How about reading a bit further in the same passage. Lets start with the Sermon on the Mount. In the same paragraph as the first quote we find another saying of Jesus: Mt 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.” Okay so now Jesus is calling some people ‘pigs’ and ‘dogs’ and he is calling other things ‘pearls’. So now how are we supposed to tell what are the pearls and who are the pigs? We are supposed to use our judgment. In other words, use our minds educated by the scriptures to judge. So now Jesus cannot be asking us never to judge, because otherwise Jesus would be contradicting himself. Both of these statements by Jesus are proverbs. Proverbs are pity sayings containing a lot of wisdom. They are not on their own and outside of the context of the rest of scripture meant to be absolute laws for all time and every situation. Apparently contradictory proverbs like these two are often put together to help people avoid interpreting the other wrongly. Together they complement each other in wisdom to help us avoid extremes. The Bible is full of instructions for us to judge one thing or another such as: the case of in Church discipline (1 Corinthians 6:1-5). Jesus commends the Ephesian church for discerning false apostles (Revelation 2:2); Peter challenges the Pharisees to ‘judge for yourself’ (Acts 4:19). Looking at Matthew 7:1 in context around it and with other similar verses in scripture (e.g. Romans 2:1) Jesus is attacking the attitude of moral superiority, hypocrisy and pettiness by some religious people based on judging those they consider religiously worse than them – and their failure to repent of their own sins by focusing on the sins of others. But we cannot use this verse outside the context of the rest of scripture to silence protests against evil as the Postmodernists would like us to.

DOES THE STORY OF THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY MEAN WE CAN’T CONDEMN SIN?

What about the quote “If any one of you is without sin, let him throw the first stone” (John 8:7)? If Matthew 7:1 is the favourite saying of the Postmoderns, probably John 8 is the favourite story of the Postmoderns. How do we respond? Firstly one should not derive absolutes out of stories. You find absolutes first in other places in the Bible and the stories should illustrate these. Secondly, we can’t extend ‘stoning’ as a metaphor meaning ‘speaking’ against evil. Thirdly, what is the context? The Jewish religious leaders catch a woman in adultery and take her to Jesus asking him if she should be stoned? Now like the time they asked him about whether he should pay taxes (Matthew 22:17), the Pharisees they are trying to trap Jesus into getting into trouble either with the religious Jews or the Roman authorities.
The point is that they are under Roman law, for which there is no capital offence for adultery and Jesus has no status as a civil magistrate. This is an illegal kangaroo court with no civil authority, into which certain Jewish fanatics are trying to involve Jesus. Only the Roman government had the right to execute a person (John 18:31). Jesus skilfully dodges their manipulative trap and teaches them a moral lesson at the same time. His response is similar when someone tries to get him to arbitrate an inheritance dispute (Luke 12:13). One could go into much more detail on the true meaning of this story, but the point here is that the Postmodernists completely misuse these scriptures to try to silence speaking up against evil.

SHOULD WE EVER CONDEMN?

On the same theme Postmoderns say that we should ‘not condemn’ to argue that we shouldn’t speak up against culturally accepted sins like fornication, pornography and homosexuality and abortion. Sounds a bit Biblical, but where exactly is that in the Bible? We could quote Romans 8:1 “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…”. In context that means that God does not condemn us when we are ‘in Christ’, namely we have been united with Christ in his death and resurrection as explained in Romans 6. But earlier in Romans, the aPostle Paul has just condemned a long list of sinful behaviours (Romans 1:18-32). And his condemnation of this list of sins (and a following list of religious sins in Romans 2) is the first thing he explains when he introduces the gospel in Romans 1:17, before he explains salvation from God’s wrath (Romans 3:23). So essentially, condemning sin and the consequent wrath of God is essential to bringing people to true salvation.

Most Postmoderns hardly have an idea what sin is, let alone the fact that God is angry with sin and will punish people forever in hell unless they repent. It is not loving to leave out this essential truth of the gospel. So reaching Postmoderns with the true gospel includes teaching them the essential concept of sin and God’s condemnation of it. Postmodern Christians argue we should leave out this nasty stuff and just concentrate on building relationships. There is a place for relationships in evangelism, but if the truth about sin and God’s wrath against it is never explained then it is not true evangelism. Most so-called Postmodern outreach is nothing but relationship building and trying to market a good image of Christianity. It might build some relationships and do some good public relations, but doesn’t save people from God’s wrath and eternity in hell.

What is the favourite verse of Evangelical Christians? Probably John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” But what does the next verse say? John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Okay so maybe are the Postmodernists right? Does this confirm we shouldn’t condemn? Lets read one more verse? John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. “ Ouch! Painful, politically incorrect stuff! How come John 3:18 isn’t quoted to non-Christians as much as John 3:16? Do we lack the guts to say it? Might it result in some anger and lead to some persecution? And maybe some more salvations too?

WHAT DID GREAT LEADERS OF THE PAST PREACH?

The great revival leaders of history, such as Charles Finney, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards regularly preached the Law and Wrath of God before they preached the Grace and Mercy of God – exactly as the apostle Paul does in the book of Romans. In fact, taking the Bible as a whole, God revealed the Law of Moses before he revealed grace in Christ. In Bible times and today, the righteous standards of God and his wrath against sin point to the redemption in Christ, which we cannot earn by our own efforts Gal 3:24 “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith”. But simply because we cannot achieve salvation or righteousness through law does not mean we dispense with law and God’s wrath against sin altogether. Explaining the anger of God against sin is the context in which we explain the grace of God which saves us from this. Now today, many postmodern Christians make jokes about Jonathan Edward’s famous sermon ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’ http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/sinners.htm
and style him as some sort of fanatic. But the point is that Jonathan Edwards was a leader of the Great Awakening. Postmodern Christians have never had any revival or awakening anywhere in the world and never will because God doesn’t bless a false truncated distorted Postmodern gospel. The Postmodern gospel doesn’t condemn sin and so doesn’t convict of sin and doesn’t lead men to repentance.

WHAT DID THE APOSTLES PREACH IN ACTS?

What was the example of the apostles? Implicit in their arguing that Jesus was the Messiah was the allegation that the Jewish leaders had committed murder in executing Jesus and innocent man. That was why they were persecuted! Not just because they were some new Jewish sect. Peter repeatedly accuses those who killed Jesus: Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”; “Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. “This was not lost on the authorities Acts 5:28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the apostles did not preach a nice politically correct gospel and neither should we.

Condemning sin in society is also one of the ways we awake the social conscience to stop the murdering of unborn babies and the tearing apart of families as a result of sexual immorality. To fail to do so is not being ‘loving’ or ‘showing grace’. It is to abandon these victims to the forces of evil. Yes the apostles teaching was full of grace, but it was grace in the context of condemning sin. The two are not mutually exclusive. Grace without explaining God’s anger against sin is meaningless. The Cross of Christ perfectly unites the two concepts, in displaying both how much God hates sin what he suffered in our place and how much God loves sinners in being willing to give his son in our place. Preaching the cross includes condemning sin.

WHY MUST WE WARN PEOPLE AGAINST SIN?

Ezekiel 3:18 says “When I say to a wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.” God isn’t neutral in the matter. It is not optional for us to speak up against serious social evil. We must not be discouraged by the Postmodern political correctors who seek to silence the Christian voice against evil in society. We must continue to speak up for truth and righteousness and correct those Postmoderns who are trying to change the gospel and remove the bits that offend our culture.

If you are a pastor or home group leader, why not consider teaching on these often quoted scriptures, but this time tackle the challenge of postmodernism head-on and equip your people to stand for the truth. If you aren’t why not forward this email to your pastor or home group leader and encourage him to do so.

CELEBRATING AND DEFENDING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE TODAY

2009-07-24T03:53:00.001-07:00

CELEBRATING AND DEFENDING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE TODAY

Conservative evangelicals are often accused of being reactionary. i.e. always being ‘anti-‘ something. What are we for? What do we celebrate in the midst of our battles? One thing we can celebrate and thank God for is the authority of scripture above all man-made philosophies. But defending the authority scripture today is not the same as it was centuries ago or even in our parents generation. Most of the creeds and confessions Christian organisations profess are out of date – not because they are wrong, but because they don’t answer the challenging questions being posed by our culture. Many Christians have adopted the worldview of our culture and then try to use it to interpret scripture. The result is confusion in ethics and belief. On most issues scripture contradicts our popular worldly culture – and on many issues a church culture which has tried to accommodate that worldly culture. The consequence is that the authority is subordinated to the culture rather than used as the ‘Sword of the spirit’ to destroy worldly ideas and transform that culture. The first question Satan asked mankind was ‘Did God really say’? If he can sow confusion on that issue, then he can lead us into sin on a lot of other issues.

WHAT ARE SOME WORLDLY IDEAS UNDERMING SCRIPTURES AUTHORITY?

Have you heard anyone promoting these ideas? Have you or your organisation been affected by them.

MODERNIST LIBERALISM: Disbelieving the TRUTH of scripture. This ideology which began in the 1850s in Germany assumes that scripture must be subordinate to the findings of modern academic thinking. Thus, for example, Biblical miracles are disbelieved. Modernism gutted most of the mainline Protestant denominations in the 1920s and 30s, but is losing popularity.

NEO-ORTHODOXY: Believing the Bible is SPIRITUALLY TRUE but not necessarily true in other respects. Popularised by the theologian Karl Barth. When asked whether he believed that God created the world, he replied ‘This world does not matter’. When asked whether a newspaper reporter would have had anything to photograph had he witnessed the resurrection, he dodged the question. Adopted to varying degrees by many evangelical groups, many of which had rejected modernism.

POSTMODERNIST LIBERALISM: The belief that the Bible has personal authority for me, but not absolute authority over those who don’t believe it or interpret it differently. A belief that the meaning of scripture is NOT CLEAR and thus no one can impose their views on anyone else. This uncertainty on the meaning of scripture turns the clear teaching of scripture on issues like homosexuality into just someone’s opinion. Also a belief that feelings and relationships are important, while truth and right behaviour are not. Closely linked to this is the view of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, where one should avoid mentioning anything in the Bible that might offend someone of another cultural belief. Also closely linked to this is the FEELINGS FOCUS, a belief that we should avoid telling anyone anything in the Bible that might offend their feelings. Needless to say, the authority of scripture is drastically undermined by gagging of expressing scriptural truth. Such a belief results in a weak view of scripture which has no authority in society.

PIETISM: A belief that scripture has authority in my personal devotional and church life, but has nothing to say about how we should govern society for example in terms of politics, commerce or interpret the study of history. The result is the authority of scripture is limited to the individual and the church, but one cannot for example tell the government not to legalise abortion.

POPULAR PSYCHOLOGY: A belief in the ‘non-directional counselling’ approach where everyone must decide in ethics what to do for themselves. Thus one must never tell anyone what the scripture says they should do in their situation or that in terms of the scripture they have done anything wrong. Scripture is then just ‘good advice’ but never binding or prescriptive. The concepts of ‘guilt’ and ‘sin’ are taboo and should never be mentioned lest people are offended. Closely linked to this is the view that we should NEVER JUDGE someone’s actions. While the scripture does teach caution in judging, it does not prohibit saying that something is wrong or sinful.

THE EVANGELICAL MEGASHIFT: A belief that we should only talk about those doctrines in scripture which don’t offend our culture, but still profess to believe in them. So for example, such Christians would avoid mentioning hell, judgement, the wrath of God, sin, the fear of God and rather talk only about relationships, feelings, God’s love and mercy. The result of this firstly that scripture loses its binding authority as God is portrayed as someone who will not do anyone any harm if they disobey it. Secondly, doctrines that are underemphasised in the next generation end up being denied. That was the pattern with early C20 modernist liberalism, and is already starting to happen in C21 evangelicalism.

NEW AGE/ANIMIST: ‘New Age Christians’ put the Bible on a similar level of authority to other religions and human philosophies. Thus the Bible can’t be used to judge the truth claims of other religions. Rather they mix in whatever bits they like e.g. Belief in astral bodies. Western Christians who do this are called New Age, while black Africans tend to mix in their ancestral beliefs.

PRAGMATISM/UTILITARIANISM: A belief that we should do what works best for the ‘greater good’, rather than to follow the detailed instructions of scripture. Scripture was written in a different context, but not really practical to follow in our culture today. For example, such people may argue promoting condoms rather than abstinence will help stop HIV-AIDS. Such people won’t speak up against sin if they don’t think people will listen to them. Contrary to this is the example of the Bible prophets who spoke truth even though most did not listen. Closely linked to this is IDEALISM, the idea that scripture is just an ideal we should try to live up to and not really practical to follow for example on standards for sexual holiness.

EMOTIONALISM: Such people may say ‘Follow your heart and not your head’. There is a bit of truth in that because the heart has an important role in the Christian life, but it cannot be used as an authority above scripture. This is sometimes applied as HEDONISM: A view that God wants us to be happy, even if this means disobeying the scripture. Thus for example, someone questions the scriptural prohibition on homosexuality because a homosexual couple he knows are so happy together. On the other hand, divorce is condoned when it is believed an unhappily married couple would be happier apart.

With the INSPIRATIONAL/HOROSCOPE method of Bible interpretation, people open the Bible randomly or where they know the nice bits are and look for scriptures that will give them encouragement while ignoring the rest. There is then no compulsion to try to understand or obey the bits we don’t like. We can just skim over them and move on. Thus the Bible’s authority is subordinated to our preferences.

ANTINOMIANISM (or ANTI-LAW): A view that because we are under grace that we are no longer bound to follow the moral instructions of scripture, so long as we do things out of a motivation of love. This idea has been around since New Testament times and alongside passages such as Colossians 3 attack it.

DIRECT REVELATION ABOVE SCRIPTURE: A belief that what one feels God has spoken into our own heart is above what he has written in his word. Examples of this error include a pastor saying that God had told him to divorce his wife and marry another woman. On another occasion, an unmarried couple knelt down to pray together about whether or not God wanted them to sleep together and concluded after prayer that he did. Another lady believed after prayer that God wanted her to have an abortion. Any ‘direct revelation’ which contradicts scripture is from the devil and not from God.

EXPERIENCE ABOVE SCRIPTURE: A belief that if our experience does not match a scripture we know, then we can disbelieve that scripture. For example, such a person may say ‘I know the Bible says God heals, but I don’t believe that because I know a good Christian who was sick and she died’. In such situations, we should not question scripture, but rather whether we have understood its meaning correctly – and study it further to understand it better.

HYPER-AUTHORITARIANISM: A belief in some churches that only senior church authorities can accurately interpret the Bible and that no one has a right to challenge them on the basis of scripture. Thus if anyone in an organisation is unsure of the ethics of a matter, they consult the senior authority. If they condone it – then it is okay. Such hyper-authoritarian authorities will often not want to be accountable to the historic accepted interpretations of scripture agreed with the wider body of Christ, but wish to make their own interpretations on an ad-hoc basis. The result is that the senior authorities often make exceptions and decide to ‘show grace’, bending the rules of scripture for themselves and their friends – leading to multiple scandals in the church.

MAN FEARING: Man fearing can take many forms. It includes for example, DEMOCRACY – often the reluctance of a spiritual shepherd to enforce the teaching of scripture for example in a church discipline case, where this might be unpopular with the sheep. In countries where there is overt state persecution, believers brave the threat of arrest to speak the Word of God, but in our culture we have the much milder persecution of simple unpopularity and social disapproval when we do so – even sometimes from other believers. We must recognise this for what it is PERSECUTION, count the cost and risk the consequences.

DISMISSING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: Because many parts of the Old Testament have been superseded or differently fulfilled in the New Testament, many find it easier to simply dismiss the whole of the Old Testament rather than learning to interpret it correctly through the lens of the New Testament. Thus one then cannot appeal to the authority of the Old Testament scriptures. Contrary to this approach, Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted heavily from the Old Testament.

CHALLENGES POSED BY THESE IDEAS

The above ideas challenge: The reliability of scripture, the right to speak scripture, the clarify of scripture, the practicality of scripture, the authority of scripture over human authorities and the question of who has the right to interpret scripture.

So we must demolish all of these cultural human ideologies with our glorious Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God and look for opportunities to speak it in defiance of our cultural norms and pressure. Unlike these human ideas, scripture is the WORD OF GOD. It is true and contains commands applicable to everyone for all time – Christian or not. It is the basis on which all will one day be judged and the authority on which we can challenge any other human authority.

Gently but firmly we must point out to people when they use these methods with authority above the word of God.

We trust that it is clear and practically applicable in our situation. Combating the worldly ideas of our culture is a big job. Fortunately we don’t need to do it alone. Word of God itself is what will defeat them. We must just keep speaking it, regardless of the consequences.

Shack Attack (by Jordan Pickering)

2009-02-20T05:36:00.000-08:00

'Shack Attack' by Jordan Pickering

The Shack is part of a new postmodern Christianity, which is trying to shape our faith so that it fits more comfortably into postmodern society. In this project, it has jettisoned much of what is characteristic of Christianity, and reconstructed an image of God that has lost its Family resemblance.

The mistake that Christians will make about The Shack is to assume that because it is fiction, it is not theology. In our postmodern times, story is the favourite way of communicating. So we need to quickly wise up to the fact that Christian novels are works of theology. And they can either be teaching the true gospel or a false one.

The problem with fiction is that it is emotional rather than logical, and it’s message is woven into plot and dialogue and character development. This makes it very difficult to evaluate whether its message is good or bad. Stories don’t need to justify any of their points, or practice careful exegesis of key texts. If a story wants to make you believe something, it can create a loveable, trustworthy hero to advocate that point, and it can put the opposite view in the mouth of a revolting, unlovely scoundrel. The victory can be won, virtually subliminally, through emotion, not reason.

Stories are also difficult to assess because they tend to be ambiguous. The author is not bound to explain everything his characters say, and even if a character says something outrageous, we can’t know whether the author agrees with what his character has said. These problems are certainly true of The Shack.

So, fiction is a problematic medium for theology, and it will require careful thought and keen awareness from us as readers.

Positive things in the book

The Shack addresses two great problems in the Christian life: the problem of pain and grief, and the problem of empty religion.

In terms of his take on pain, the author does a lot of good work in affirming God’s goodness and God’s love in spite of our circumstances. So that’s reassuring. Unfortunately, he also goes too far. His God is not a judge and he’s never angry, and pain in the world is seemingly not God’s doing. It seems as though the author can only explain evil as being out of God’s control. So while there is much good on the subject of pain, it is hard to separate it out from a very faulty doctrine of God. I’d far rather that readers struggle their way through CS Lewis’ The Problem of Pain, than to read something easy and poisonous like The Shack.

Secondly, the author takes aim at the problem of empty religion. He asks a lot of the right questions about this subject, and he points out that relationship with God is at the heart of our faith, not structures and performance and rule keeping. Unfortunately, he once again goes too far. Instead of restoring our worship and church order and lifestyle to a context of relationship with God, he throws out church order and scripture and rule keeping altogether.

So, once again, the good that he does is undone by an overbalance. There are hundreds of books that might inspire readers to genuine relationship with God while opposing Pharisaism (as The Shack tries to do), without discarding the Evangelical faith (as The Shack does), so rather read those.

Concerns with the book

There are many concerns that ought to be addressed, especially problems with the doctrine of the Trinity and with attacks on church order. But let’s focus on two of the more serious issues.

SCRIPTURE

The Shack is a postmodern book, and so the author doesn’t like the idea of truth and authority. That means that scripture cannot be God’s True Word and our final authority. In fact, he speaks of scripture as a book in which we’ve trapped God so that we can control him, and he’s even cynical towards the idea of there being a correct way of interpreting the Bible, because then the teachers can control it.

The Shack holds up direct, face-to-face communication with God as the Christian ideal. The trouble is, far from setting us free, this idea means that Christians will be listening to whatever wind blows through their minds, imagining that this or that thought is actually God’s voice, and then once you’ve got a good one, without scripture, by what standard will you test the spirits to see if they are from God, as John says?

Or, if there is no such thing as correct interpretation of scripture, the alternative is chaos, not freedom. One is able to invent any number of creative interpretations if one bends one’s mind to it. That’s where cults and false teaching come from, and every kind of spiritual captivity. But if we believe that there is in principle a correct interpretation, then it means that we believe in a standard of Truth, and even our leaders are subject to it. If we treat scripture properly, then we hear God speak, and He leads us by His Word. It is this that prevents us from being taken captive. We are not at the mercy of the creativity of our teachers. [The author might protest that, in his scheme, there is no need for teachers at all. I would have to ask in response what he thinks he is then, if not a teacher? People inevitably gravitate around leaders. True Scripture ensures that we and our leaders alike are governed by God, and not deception].

SIN AND SALVATION

The biggest problem with the book is its doctrine of sin and salvation. It is extremely vague and ambiguous at every step here, and so it’s difficult to say precisely what the book is teaching. However it leans very strongly towards the belief that God does not judge or punish sin:

Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Pgs 118-120)

In discussion about hell, The Shack forces us to imagine sending one of our own children to hell forever. The lead character finds it impossible to imagine sending someone he loves to hell, and so the implication is that God, who loves infinitely more than we do, would not do so either. This relies on the assumption that God's attitude to sin is the same as ours. It's not. Even the supposed dichotomy between God’s love and God’s judgment is a false one, but, on that basis, The Shack seems to rule out the existence of hell and judgment.

The Shack also teaches that, regardless of whether or not we believe in Him, God has reconciled Himself fully to the world. It never says that the world is thus reconciled to God, but you can’t actually claim to be reconciled to someone if they still hate you. Reconciliation is all or nothing. So if you take the book seriously, it’s saying that everyone will be saved regardless of faith.

And finally, when it speaks about what God requires of us, the book’s answer is ‘nothing at all’. We have no law, no responsibility, and God expects nothing of us. The God character says at one point, “because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me” (pg 206).

So in summary, The Shack is a very dangerous book, because it is sweet and warm and easy to read, but it’s actually selling a religion that has no rule of faith, no community in which you need to serve, and no order or authority. It sells a God who isn’t offended by sin, who makes no demands, has no expectations and is never disappointed in anybody, and who will not judge or condemn. You’ll read the book and wish that you had these characters as your father and mother and best friend, but the portrait of God that the author has drawn is an idol of his own carving. This god might be as warm and loveable as Oprah, but it’s not the Christian God any longer.

For a longer review of 'The Shack' by the same author, Jordan Pickering go to:

http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/shack-attack-1-cautionary-tales/

http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/shack-attack-2-gods-person/

http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/shack-attack-3-gods-truth/

http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/shack-attack-4-hierarchy-organised-religion/

http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/shack-attack-5-sin-and-salvation/

Change to Blog Title 'Emerging' to 'Postmodernism'

2009-02-18T04:13:00.000-08:00

To try to clear up misunderstandings shown in numerous comments received, I have changed the title of this blog from 'The Emerging Threat of the Emerging Church in South Africa' to

'The Emerging Threat of Postmodernism in the Church in South Africa'. There are three reasons for the change:

* Firstly, there are some people who label themselves 'emerging church' or 'emergent' who are orthodox evangelicals trying to find ways reach culturally people with the gospel, without compromising the gospel. There are some who also use the word 'emerging' and 'emergent' in a flippant way like 'cool' to mean anything that is up to date and in tune with the culture. There are others who have just jumped onto the bandwagon of the movement as they do with many other passing fads, but have not necessarily absorbed the theology. While I believe these people make a mistake to share this label with unorthodox people, I do not wish to alienate them as my brothers in Christ.

* Secondly, some people interpret the 'emerging church' movement as being a legitimate part of the church (the body of Christ). Thus they see attacking the movement as attacking the church or at least a denomination of the church. Really, the movement is not a church or denomination, but a movement spreading false and destructive teaching within the church. Postmodernism within the church is like disease within the body. A doctor fights the disease - not the patient. The term 'emerging church' is problematic because it lends credibilty to the group as part of the 'church'. The new title referring to 'postmodernism in the church' defines the disease more clearly as different from the patient.

* Thirdly, there are probably hundreds of thousands of South African Christians (maybe even a majority amongst under 35 year old urban English home language Christians), who do not call themselves 'emergent' or 'emerging', but who have without realising it, have incorporated false beliefs borrowed from Postmodernism into their Christianity. Many such people will have never even heard the term 'emerging church' and thus may think this blog is not relevant to them.

Many good pastors have churches full of young people who have been deceived by postmodernism - while the good pastor is blissfully unaware that they interpret everything he says through this new lens. The pastor may get frustrated when they don't understand, much less apply what he teaches, but he doesn't know why. Such a pastor might think this blog is not relevant to his church. One denominational leader said that the Emerging Church is a 'non-event'. In saying so, he demonstrates he is tragically out of touch with the youth of his own denomination, which is one of the most seriously infected with postmodern thinking. Reality is that just about every urban English speaking church in South Africa has been infiltrated to some extent by postmodern culture - and probably the more young and educated the members - the more they have been influenced.

How can a pastor or deacon know if the youth of his church have been influenced by postmodernism and the Emerging Church movement?

There are several tests: Firstly, discuss topical issues and listen to their opinions (this is easiest by reading online discussion forums). If you see expression of postmodern viewpoints (e.g. we should tolerate every kind of behaviour including e.g. homosexality and abortion; truth is personal and not absolute; we can never be absolutely sure exactly what the Bible means; Christians have no right to tell non-Christians what to do on ethical issues), then those are clues. Secondly, if your members like books, DVDs and blogs by postmodern/emergent authors (e.g. Brian McLaren; Rob Bell; Doug Paggit, Leonard Sweet, Dan Kimball, Tony Jones, Andrew Jones, Steve Chalke) that is another clue. Most young educated people are now on www.Facebook.com . This can help you get to know your church members. Here many list their favourite authors and books on their personal profile page - many also list interest groups they are part of, many of which relate to emergent church themes. Thirdly, read their personal blogs and see what opinions they write and who they link to (e.g. other Emerging Church blogs). If they write articles, see who they reference. Nevertheless one or two clues doesn't prove they have fully bought into the Emerging Church agenda, but it does show they are being influenced by it. If members of your church who were previously clear on core Christian doctrinal and ethical teaching, start to doubt and become fuzzy - it is probably worth investigating to check for 'emerging church' influence. If you want to check whether a leader or an author is part of the 'emerging church' movement, then just do a Google web search with the [author's name] and the words 'emerging emergent'. Then just click on a few links to check the context and you should get an idea. Then also do a web search for the author's name or the title of a book and the word 'heresy'. Unfortunately, many orthodox teachers are falsely accused of heresy on the internet, so you have to read the links to check what they are teaching, but it should save you the time of having to read all their works yourself.

Some Christians have misunderstood my articles on the Emergent Church as thinking that I am attacking a 'cult' or minority 'sect'. While many of the beliefs promoted in the Emergent Church are as unorthodox as those in 'cults' (e.g. acceptance of homosexuality; denial of hell; referring to God as feminine etc), the 'Emerging Church' movement is not sectarian as are most 'sects' or 'cults'. It is impacting the mainstream of the Evangelical Church - their books are published by evangelical publishers and on sale in almost all our best Christian bookshops. If the Emergent Church were simply forming a new denomination for their adherents, I would not waste my time attacking them. It is the success they are having in shifting the beliefs of believers of most denominations in the direction of Postmodernism, which is the reason why we must fight to defend the mainstream. If we do not, mainstream evangelicalism risks shifting to a liberal view of scripture, as did most of the Protestant denominations in the early Twentieth Century. If this scenario continues, it is we in orthodox evangelicalism, who believe the Bible is absolute truth and a binding authority that might be marginalised and considered by many to be a 'sect', as occured with many orthodox splinter denominations in the early Twentieth Century.

Neither is all of this shift due to the efforts of the 'Emergent Village' network. The culture of Europe, North America and most of the European language speaking world has in the last few decades shifted in the direction of Postmodernism. Many Christians, lacking adequate teaching on Biblical theology and Christian worldview, bring these false beliefs with them into the church without questioning them.

Thus the need to change the blog title to clarify the threat we are facing.

Answering Emergent response to Joy Magazine article on Postmodernism

2009-01-06T08:17:00.000-08:00

Nic Paton of Emergent Africa responds to my article published in this month's edition of Joy Magazine entitled 'Is Postmodernism Uprooting the Church'

Read his response 'Joy Magazine consolidates anti-emergent stance' at: www.emergentafrica.com post dated 6 Jan 09

* Paton starts by citing various core values of Joy Magazine which he feels were not followed in their failure to give him permission to reprint their article published in the August issue of Joy Magazine http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2008/08/emergents-respond-to-joy-magazine.html. I cannot speak for Joy Magazine, but I would argue their response is fairly normal for a magazine to reserve copyright to protect their sales at least until that edition is out of circulation.

* Paton makes a good and fair summary of my article.

* Paton argues a distinction between the ideology of postmodernism and the 'phase of history' of 'post-modernity'. I dispute this distinction, as an attempt to clothe an ideology as a time frame. Since it is impossible to fight a time frame, without being backward, thus then according to such theory, postmodernity/postmodernism is invincible. So many other ideologies themselves in something else e.g. Marxism as 'Scientific socialism' as if you can't fight science. But where is Marxism now? So the 'New Age' movement implies a time based period etc. No, I don't accept the distinction.

* Paton argues that Postmoderns do draw from the past rather than simply creating new ideas. Yes this is agreed. Nevertheless, the way it uses the past is not the way the people of the past used those ideas within the framework of a system, but rather postmodernism tends to borrow bits and pieces from various different systems and ideologies without attempting to coherently fit them together. This is seen most clearly in Postmodern art and architecture (e.g. the V&A Waterfront and Century City Shopping Centres in Cape Town). This may be enjoyable as art, but it is dangerous for theology.

* Paton argues that the tenor of my Jan 09 Joy article is confrontatory and suggests that this is an influence of Augustine rather than Modernism or Protestantism. In response, I argue yes it is not a Modernist response. But no I would argue Reformation Protestantism was like Augustine highly polemical - but I would go back further to say that most of the Bible is highly polemical - if you take the polemical content out of the New Testament, you would would probably have to delete two thirds of it.

* Paton defends Postmodern influence against the allegation of a reluctance to present the gospel by arguing courage in theology and church practice. Yes I recognise Emergents have showed a lot of courage in such areas (although I think most of it is misguided and unhelpful), yes it may include a form of courage in breaking with traditional practices and teachings. But the allegation in my article is that postmodernism undermines courage in confronting sinners with the core message of the gospel: sin, hell, repentance etc. Paton has not yet answered this.

* Paton writes "If preaching of a gospel is motivated not wholly by the Love of God, but by any threat such as that of hell, or endless retributive separation from the Creator, the authenticity of that gospel must be questioned." Well yes, exactly that is further evidence for what I am saying, Postmodernism/Emergent church is changing the core of the gospel - we disagree on this. If the gospel is just motivated by the love of God, then it is an 'alternative lifestlye' for us to choose. Exactly what I have been saying. This is where Postmodernism is misleading people and distorting the gospel. The gospel is not Postmodern. Hell is a very un-Postmodern concept. It is fundamentally intolerant of alternative viewpoints. Either the gospel must change postmodernism or postmodernism must change the gospel. Hopefully the love of God will draw us to repentance, but the threat of hell is very very real and a very good reason to convert.

* In the side bar of the same Emerging Africa blog (accessed 6 Jan 09), is a poll of their readers showing approximately one third agnostic and one third universalist and another third divided over the question of whether a few or many will be saved. Again confirmation that Postmodernism is bluring the issues. The Bible says only a few will be saved (Luke 13:23-25 & other scriptures).

* In response to my argument that 'Postmodernism affects attitudes to the persecuted', Paton argues that the Emergents have stories of comfort to the suffering. There is no disagreement here. Emergents may offer comfort to those who may suffer in one way or another - but will they fight for them? Will they suffer by standing with them?

To quote the World Evangelical Alliance, Religious Liberty Commission, 15 February 2008, Trends and Analysis for 2007-8, by Elizabeth Kendall "...the West, including the church is submitting to the spirit of the age: postmodernism, which specifically targets truth. As the world opens up to truth, the postmodern church abandons it, or at least abandons its claim to it. Not only does postmodernism cripple evangelism, but because postmodern Christians believe truth is relative, they have a really hard time supporting or even caring about Christians who are prepared to suffer and die for it..."

In terms of the question of my own personal standing against persecution, my work has been mostly in defending Christians who are persecuted in South Africa for their uncompromising stand for truth e.g. Healthworkers on abortion, and free speech against homosexuality. Again I am not sure if postmoderns would see much merit in suffering for this cause and may at times favour the persecutors. But in terms of other countries, The World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission are the ones who are doing a major work.

* Paton responds to my argument that postmodernism is changing the way the uncoverted interpret the gospel. He argues "“the unconverted” are not interpreting the gospel, they are simply living in culture without the complications of a commitment to the gospel. It appears the problem only comes with “conversion”". Sorry, I think Paton misses my argument here. The uncoverted have to understand at least the basics of the gospel correctly in order to convert, and if because postmodernism clouds their understanding they fail to understand, then they cannot convert. Thus in our generation, evangelism must increasingly include explaining some basic assumptions that didn't need to be explained before - like the existence of absolute truth. A new and different problem arises when such people do convert, which is that having accepted the core of the gospel (needed to convert), they then need to either reform their whole worldview away from postmodernism (which I advocate) or alternatively re-interpret Christianity through a postmodern lens (which the Emergent Church advocates).

Thanks Nic Paton for your comments. Maybe you would like to respond further to my responses. While we differ on many issues, I think we are more clearly defining those issues through the debate and most of what you say in your article I believe confirms rather than undermines my arguments. i.e. We increasingly agree on the differences between our worldviews, but the reader must now choose which worldview ('conservative evangelical' or 'emergent/postmodern', which they wish to use themselves to interpret the world and the Bible.

The rules of the Emerging Church debate

2008-11-13T08:15:00.000-08:00

Certain emergents have suggested certain rules for debate/conversation.

For example: According to Roger Saner in a comment on a previous post: Tony Jones, the co-ordinator of Emergent Village in the US, has said that he won't respond to any of his critics unless they've read, "How (not) to speak of God."

http://themillers.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/how-not-to-speak-of-god-by-peter-rollins/

It is rather a bit like McLaren who said:
Brian McLaren's view on how we can “solve” the homosexuality issue within Christianity: No one is allowed to talk about it unless they have enough points:

"10 if you have considered and studied the relevant biblical passages
10 if you have actually read the six passages about homosexuality in the bible
20 if you have read other passages that might affect the way you read those six passages
5 if you have read one or more books that reinforce the position you already hold
25 if you have read one or more books arguing the opposite position
10 if you have spent three hours reading websites showing a variety of views
50 for every friend you have who’s been through an ex-gay ministry
50 for every friend who’s been through an ex-gay ministry that didn’t work
50 for every friend who’s gay and in a long-term committed relationship
50 for every friend who’s gay and not in a committed relationship
50 for every parent you’ve listened to whose child is gay
When you have 3,000 points, you can speak on the issue."
--Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy Conference: The Gay Forum, 2005
http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html

There is another errant preacher out there (on the issue of 'The New Perspective on Paul') who tries to silence his opponents by saying that unless they have read all the Targum's on in the original Aramaic then they don't understand the subject and can't argue with him.

One of them came to me saying that I should not criticise his previously expressed viewpoint online without first following Matthew 18 procedure.

He also argued we should engage in 'conversation' rather than 'debate'.

WHAT DO WE SAY TO ALL OF THIS?

My answer to all of the above is that it is an attempt to set unreasonable conditions which then allow errant teachers to spread their error, without opposition - by making it hard and difficult to follow all their conditions for engaging in debate. Basically it is a circular argument: You need to buy into a certain amount of postmodernism in order to be allowed to debate with postmoderns. No you don't.

No, one does not need to read a complete chosen book on postmodernism to be able to express disagreement with its ideas. That should be fairly simple to anyone with a basic knowledge of scripture.

McLaren's idea of counting 'experience points' before expressing views against homosexuality is ridiculous. It is plain in scripture and authority comes from scripture not your own experience. Postmodernism promotes the idea of personal experience rather than objective truth as an authority.

No you don't need to follow Matthew 18 procedure before arguing online. Once a person has gone public with their views, you can argue back publicly. Online unless in a closed forum, is public. Paul did this against Peter as an example. GAL 2:14 "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

As for the non-emergent guy who wants us to read all the Targums in the original Aramaic before arguing with him, well, great strategy to silence everyone else, but our authority should be the Bible and not the Targums, which are a very loose but sometimes helpful Aramaic paraphrase.

Now as to the idea of engaging in conversation rather than debate. Sorry, but this presupposes a postmodern paradigm, which I do not share. That paradigm evades propositional statements and Yes/No, right/wrong choices. Yes, I will converse in many circumstances to better understand people, but in other instances I debate and here I debate.

I have also met this type of argument in other contexts. For example, some feminists say you can't argue on the abortion issue unless you are a woman - otherwise that proves you must be a male chauvanist.

Yes I do try listen to the other side but I believe the above rules are unreasonable.

AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX?

2008-11-10T08:58:00.000-08:00

AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX?

Some 'emerging church' followers reading this blog are probably going to protest at some point and say 'you are misrepresenting me' and 'I don't believe that'. Or 'my pastor is a good Bible believing Christian and he is involved in this' - are you saying he is a heretic?

Types of emerging church leaders and participants

No. Firstly, there are many different streams in the emerging/ emergent church/ 'missional' movement. Secondly, the post-modern belief system itself encourages diversity of belief. Thirdly, different people joining the movement have mixed it in different proportions with Biblical Christianity. Some are mostly Biblical and a little post-modern. Others are mostly post-modern and a little biblical. Some fall within the boundaries of Orthodox Christianity, some do not. Fourthly, post-modern beliefs have logical implications, which will lead progressively to a straying away from belief in the Bible. New 'emerging church' followers have not realised where their new 'uncertain' Biblical interpretation method will lead them. For now most of them remain mostly biblical, but in a decade or two they will have strayed further. Future generations of 'emerging church' followers will probably slide all the way to apostasy and rejection of Christian ethics, as many modernists have done.

One must draw a very big distinction between Christians who are trying to reach ‘post-modern’ youth by adopting cultural elements of post-modernism in their style of preaching and service format on the one hand and Christians who are re-interpreting the Bible through a post-modern lens. Some of the former category, call themselves ‘emerging church’, while others do not. My big problem is with the latter category – and I would prefer if the former category disassociated with the latter type and called themselves something different.

There are some areas where Christianity does not clash with post-modernism and on these areas we can adapt without compromising on essentials to try to win over youth influenced by post-modernism. For example, post-modernists tend to prefer stories illustrating a point to abstract theory. Jesus also taught that way in his parables. The Bible is full of stories and so is your personal testimony. Secondly, one can cater for their desire for meaningful relationships. Thirdly, we can also affirm the unity of true orthodox Christians across sectarian boundaries. Fourthly, the emerging church often encourages experimenting with changing the format of the worship service, often re-including elements practised centuries ago or borrowing ideas from contemporary youth culture. While this should be done with caution, truth is sacred, but service format is not.

The issue is very similar to evangelising any culture. For example, there is good and bad in traditional African culture. For example the emphasis on the extended family is more biblical than Western culture. Nevertheless, as Christians, we can’t compromise with ancestor worship. Missionaries to post-moderns need to filter the good from the bad.
Answering the evangelistic argument

Now some orthodox, Bible believing Christians have aligned themselves with the ‘emerging movement’. For example Mark Driscoll writes “In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.” http://www.theresurgence.com/welcome

Such people often see the ‘Emerging Church’ movement as a means to reach a generation of culturally post-modern youth. A question must be asked as to why they choose to align themselves in the same group and under the same name, with a movement whose principal leaders are not doctrinally orthodox Bible believers? By doing so, do they not risk lending credibility and leading others astray to follow the heretical leaders who share the same banner? Why do they not call themselves by another name and clearly disassociate themselves from the heretical leaders and beliefs? For example, they could use the name ‘Mission to Post-moderns’. By failing to demarcate a clear boundary between evangelical Christianity and the Post-modern adaptation of the gospel, they leave the door open for false teachers who use the same label and banner. The question is which direction is the influence mostly going? Are these Christians mostly influencing Post-moderns to become Orthodox Christians or are they leaving the door open for Orthodox Christians to be seduced into Postmodernism?

To respond to the evangelism argument, I would give two responses. Firstly, the main reason why Post-moderns fail to convert is not because the gospel is not formatted in a trendy culturally appealing ‘Post-modern way’. Actually, Post-moderns are generally more open to listen to the gospel than their Modernist predecessors, but they tend to just filter the gospel through their Post-modern lens, which treats it as just another opinion – and thus evade the challenge to repent of sin. They don’t see themselves as sinners because they don’t understand the concept of sin and thus don’t see any need to repent. Thus to really reach Post-moderns with the gospel, one needs to spend double the effort emphasising the differences with Biblical Christianity – the basic themes of absolute truth, God’s absolute moral standards, sin and repentance. Similarly a new generation of weak post-modern Christians has grown up who see their feelings as more important than their holiness and right belief. To really help such Christians, one needs to bring them back to orthodox Christian basics. I argue we need a more challenging gospel presentation emphasising the differences rather than the similarities with postmodernism.

Secondly, the emergent church tends to blur the focus in evangelism from calling the ‘lost to repentance’ to ‘dialogue’ with other religions. While this may result in less people being offended by Christianity, I believe it will likely lead to a diversion of effort from evangelism to ‘dialogue’, false conversions of those who have not really repented of their sins and ultimately less people being converted to the true faith.

Is there a difference? Emerging vs Emergent

2008-11-06T23:08:00.000-08:00

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? EMERGING VS EMERGENT

Some have argued that I am being unfair in criticising the 'Emerging Church'. They draw a distinction, saying that the 'Emergent' church is different from the 'Emerging' church - with the 'Emergent' church being the more radical liberal wing of the movement and the 'Emerging' church being more mainstream.

Now to respond to this question firstly, I understand that there are different types of people within the movement, whatever you want to call it. Some are orthodox Christians and some are outright heretics, with a continuum of everything in between. One could compare it with the movement of socialism: There is a major difference between the socialism of the British labour party and that of the old Communist Soviet Union, but both use the same name 'socialist'.

The most substantial radical distinction between those in the movement is the difference between those who are 'Missionaries of historic orthodox trying to reach postmodern society' and those who are 'Missionaries of postmodernism to the church, trying to integrate it with Christianity'. Confusingly, both types of people sometimes call themselves 'Emerging'. Now I myself am also trying to reach postmodern society with the gospel and try to be culturally sensitive where this is possible without compromising, but do not wish to associate myself with the movement - but others do. And that creates confusion.

Some claim that 'Emerging' means the 'orthodox' wing and 'Emergent' means the unorthodox liberal wing of the movement. For example, read:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1645/Jason_Carlson

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/september/38.59.html

Now the question is whether there is any widely accepted consensus on the difference of meaning of the terms 'Emerging' and 'Emergent'? A brief internet search comes with the answer: 'No". Many leaders such as Don Carson (anti-) and Brian McLaren (pro-) use the two terms interchangably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church#.22Emerging.22_versus_.22Emergent.22
Tony Jones (pro-) argues no distinction and opposes all 'line drawing'.
http://tonyj.net/2008/04/15/emerging-vs-emergent/

Doug Paggit defines 'Emergence' as what is happening in society; 'Emerging' as what is happening in the church as a result of the social changes; and 'Emergent Village' as the core network of leaders within the movement.
http://centraloregonemerge.com/2008/09/25/doug-pagitt-emergent-vs-emergin/
Those leaders associated with 'Emergent Village' have tended to 'emerge' with the most eccentric, liberal and extreme theological errors, which is probably why many have extended the use of the term 'Emergent' to mean the 'liberal' wing of the movement. But I would argue that these leaders are just those radicals who are most enthusiastic in reinterpreting Christianity through a post-modern lens - and their much larger constituency of orthodox evangelical followers are the laggards slowly following in the wrong direction behind them. The longer these people immerse themselves in postmodern thinking, the further they tend to stray down the road of error. In other words it is often a distinction between the 'wolves in sheeps clothing' and the 'sheep' following the wrong way with them.

Some have claimed all successfully trying to reach postmoderns e.g. Tim Keller, a conservative evangelical, as part of the 'Emerging Church',
http://www.theologyprof.com/mcknight-on-emergent-in-ct/
but Keller himself rejects the label.
http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2007/06/20/tim-keller-on-if-his-redeemer-church-is-emergent/

Mark Driscoll is exceptional in that as part of the movement, he has distanced himself from some other emerging church leaders "In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Driscoll
I think such distancing from theological liberals is commendable and I would encourage others who identify themselves with the Emerging Church movement to do the same. Driscoll sees four categories of 'Emerging Church' of which he strongly rejects the liberal category.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080227/mars-hill-pastor-ditches-emerging-label-for-jesus.htm
Others have labelled him as 'a theological misfit and no longer emergent'
http://adrianwarnock.com/2006/03/mark-driscoll-theological-misfit-and.htm

I personally use the two terms 'Emerging' and 'Emergent' interchangably because that is what I see most others doing, but understand that others use them to mean different things. I personally wish that they did mean different things, because it would help me to draw a distinction between the orthodox evangelicals and the extremist unorthodox liberals. But reality is that there is no consensus on a distinction between these terms.

But if you happen to be one of those people who self-identifies with the Emerging Church, and is trying to reach postmoderns with historic orthodox Christianity without using postmodernism as a lens to re-interpret the Bible - then please understand that I am not attacking you. I personally believe it is unhelpful to share the same label as those who are spreading theological error in the church, but if you are not spreading error then I don't reject you as a Christian brother simply because of the label. But if you do wish to use this label, I would urge you to publicly distance yourself from the errant teachings being promoted by others who use the 'emerging' or 'emergent' label.

I would argue that those conservative evangelicals who want to reach postmoderns in a culturally relevant way, rather than trying to split hairs over the distinction between 'emerging' and 'emergent' should invent a completely new an different label for themselves to distance themselves from the emerging 'wolves in sheeps clothing' who are trying to reinterpret Christianity through the lens of postmodernism.

But my really big issue is actually not with those who self-identify as 'emerging' or 'emergent' - these are mostly just just the vanguard of the confusion. My issue is a concern about the millions of young Christians who without consciously realising it, have adopted the worldview of postmodernism and placed Christianity as just a minor sub-set or 'religious department' of this worldview - rather than seeing Jesus as Lord of all of life and the Bible, the word of God as authoratative for all of life. This is the 'Lost generation' of Christians who need to be brought back to authentic biblical Christianity and to use this real Christianity, relevant to all of life to reach and convert the unsaved from postmodernism to Christ.

Is the Bible out of date because it condones slavery?

2008-11-05T03:20:00.000-08:00

One of the Emergents in a comment on a previous post wrote: "This leads into hermeneutics: would it have been possible for the authors of the Bible to refer to G-d in *any other way* other than male? I don't think this possibility entered their consciousness, just like the abolition of slavery was not something which entered their minds."

Now the use of the slavery issue is a common reason used by both modernist and post-modernist liberals to advance the 'progressivist' idea that Christianity is changing and moving forward in its belief rather than being a fixed for all time set of beliefs. Others have used the argument to justify a change in doctrine on homosexuality. The real issue is not our view of slavery, but our method of interpreting scripture and the unchanging binding authority which conservative envangelicals (but not modernists or postmodernists) believe it holds.

The argument is that we believe slavery is wrong, but don't derive this view from the Bible so we more 'modern' or 'postmodern' people can derive our ethics from places other than the Bible also.

I respond to this argument as follows:

The Biblical position on slavery is more complex than on most other issues. It is important to address, because some argue that because firstly, the Old Testament law allows slavery, and we do not. Secondly, the New Testament says slaves should submit to their masters, while we don't have it in our society. Therefore, they argue that ethics are progressing from Biblical times. This argument is then used to undermine the authority of the Bible for today, because it is seen as being culturally determined - a culture which is now outdated by our 'modern' or 'postmodern' culture. Therefore, new ethical and doctrinal ideas not in the Bible can be entertained and old ethical and doctrinal ideas that are in the Bible, but which don't suit our modern context can be dismissed.

We must look at it in the context that it was practiced as a form of labour management in various forms by almost all societies throughout the world until very recently. It is still practiced in some Islamic countries such as Sudan and Mauritania. The impetus to outlaw slavery was largely driven by Christians such as William Wilberforce, who were motivated by the scriptures. It is completely illegitimate therefore, for those who do not respect the scriptures to claim his historic reason to discount the authority of scripture. Rather, they need to study more carefully what the scripture says on the subject. The scriptural response to the issue is not as simple and absolute as on some other issues such as abortion, homosexuality and adultery.
Old covenant teaching on slavery

The Old Testament law allowed the slavery of Gentiles and 'indentured service' to a maximum of six years for Jews. In the seventh year, the slaves were to be released with substantial gifts to from their master to help them start a new life (Deuteronomy 15:12; Exodus 21:2). One of the reasons for God's judgement on Israel was their failure to observe this law of 7th year release. Now, while this 6-year indentured service is referred to in the Bible as "slavery", it is not the same thing as for example slavery as practiced in the American south prior to the Civil War. It is rather more similar to the few years of indentured service that the ancestors of most Indian South Africans had to give in exchange for payment of the cost of their voyage from India to South Africa. Many poor Europeans also immigrated to America after signing an 'indentured service contract' with the ship captain, who then sold the contract on their arrival in America to farmers who were looking for a few years of labour. Many university students sign contracts to work a certain number of years for a company after graduation in exchange for that company paying their university fees. If they break contract to work for another firm, then they must 'buy their freedom' and pay back their full study loan with interest - just as Hebrew slaves had to under Old Testament law. 'Indentured service' is not called slavery in our society and we should be careful against reading the Bible this way.

Firstly, the slave trade against which Wilberforce fought would not have been tolerated under Old Testament law, because kidnapping was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7). "DT 24:7 If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." Applying this law to the 'Trans-Atlantic slave trade' of the 19th century, most of those involved would have to have been executed as kidnappers.

Secondly, the Israelite law did not respect the slave-owner rights of neighbouring peoples, thus providing the opportunity for slaves of other countries to run away to Israel. DT 23:15-16 "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." This would substantially undermine legalized slavery in the region.

Thirdly, with regard to 'indentured-service' because of debt. This could be effected when a man was sold to pay debts as a result of business errors or it could be a result of an inability to pay a fine or make the law requiring multiple restitution for theft (Exodus 22:2). We must remember that under this system the man's time of servitude was limited to six years. It helped to ensure that victims of crime were properly compensated. It also meant that in the instance of bankruptcy, the creditors would at least get something back. Also, if the 'indentured-servant' was a hard worker and could earn some extra money on the side, he may be able to redeem himself from his master earlier than this 6-year period. Furthermore, the system benefited the 'indentured servant' because unlike our modern system of sending people to prison, the servant could still keep his family with him. Thus the family was not split up by the fathers' crime. This problem in our modern society has led to a terrible cycle of crime, poverty and family break-up amongst certain communities - where children grow up fatherless. The master would in this instance help teach good work skills and good work habits to the servant, thus making him more employable afterwards. By contrast, under our modern prisons system, thieves simply mix with more hardened criminals and come out of prison knowing more about crime and having even worse work habits. In addition, the taxpayer did not have the wasted expense of having to pay to keep a thief in prison. This form of 'indentured-servitude' was thus much better for the criminal, the victim and the taxpayer than the modern criminal justice system. The main difficulty in applying it today is our economic labour surplus. Criminals would effectively be advantaged in getting 'indentured-employment' over the other unemployed poor - potentially taking jobs away from them.

When the Israelites rebelled against Gods law, they failed to release their Hebrew slaves in the 7th year, which was one of the many sins against which the prophet Jeremiah spoke against and for which God later punished the Jews (Jeremiah 34:8-20).

Fourthly, the Old Testament law provided various protections of the rights of slaves not customary in the surrounding peoples. For example, they had to be allowed to rest on the Sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:14). There was a penalty for sexually taking advantage of a slave girl (Leviticus 19:20). The 'indentured-servant' retained the right of redemption anytime after he was sold based on the number of years left to the Sabbath year. He could redeem himself by extra work or one of his relatives could do so (Leviticus 25:47-52). If the servant was injured by his master, he had to be set free (Exodus 21:26-27). Likewise, if a man married a slave-girl, she had to be set free (Exodus 21:9). The law did not allow 'indentured-servants' to be abused and expected them to be treated similarly to other employees LEV 25:53 "He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly."

Apart from the 7-year limit, many of the practices of 19th century slavery such as 'slave-breeding' and the use of slaves as prostitutes would have been illegal under Old Testament law.

Thus when the Old Testament speaks of slavery of Jews, it is talking about 'indentured service', not permanent slavery.
The New Testament context

Now when we look at the issue in the New Testament context, there is a significant change. The brotherhood of Christians included both Jew and Gentile (Romans 10:12; Colossians 3:11), while the Old Testament law assumed a brotherhood only between Jews. Thus, if one applies an Old Testament law to Gentile Christians, one has to give them similar privileges to those previously reserved only for Jews. Thus the prohibition on keeping Hebrew slaves for more than seven years would now also apply to Gentiles also.

The Old Testament teaching helping slaves was repeated:

• While the New Testament does not forbid Christians to own slaves, it does instruct masters to treat them well (Colossians 4:1) and to treat Christian slaves as brothers (Philemon 1:16).
• Christian slaves were encouraged to try to earn their freedom (1 Corinthians 7:21).
• As in the Old Testament, slave trading (kidnapping) was forbidden (1 Timothy 1:10).

Then there is the question of how a Christian master would apply Jesus command 'love your neighbour' and 'do to others as you would have them do to you' to his slaves. Logically, in most cases, he would free them. This was in fact what happened in many instances. Usually not immediately, but gradually slaves were freed voluntarily by Christian masters in many slave-owning societies.

New Testament teaching carefully balances teaching on respect for all forms of human authority including slave masters (1 Peter 2:18) with responsibility of authorities including masters (Colossians 4:1) to act in accordance with Christian principles. It would not have helped slaves to gain their freedom had Paul encouraged them to rebel against their masters. It would just have resulted in a lot of conflict and in the event of a slave revolt - a bloodbath.

Looking at the issue in broader context, about a third of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. If the early Christians had started at the outset to campaign for the abolition of slavery, it would have resulted in massive social upheaval that would not have been successful. The empire was under constant threat of slave-revolts that usually resulted in massive loss of life for slaves and other citizens. It is one thing to condemn slavery, but completely another to organise a peaceful transition from a slave-owning society to a free society. There are questions to look at like: Who will find employment from unemployed freed-slaves? Who will care for aged slaves who are no longer economically productive? There are issues here beyond the scope of this article.

The historical effect of Christian teaching

The Biblical teaching of respect for authority, whilst also reforming those authorities thus allowed Christianity to operate peacefully in a society where slavery was legal, without producing social chaos, while planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of slavery as an institution. That destruction came first through voluntary freeing of slaves; secondly through the end of enslavement/kidnapping/slave trading; thirdly through improving the rights and treatment of slaves and fourthly through making slavery itself illegal by extension of the Old Testament law against permanent slavery from Jews also to Gentiles.

Historically, the campaign against slavery by William Wilberforce in the British Empire was fuelled by the revival under John Wesley and the campaign against slavery in America by Abraham Lincoln was fuelled by the revival under Charles Finney. Both evangelists spoke out strongly against the practice and encouraged their politically minded followers to fight for abolition. It is questionable whether the political motivation for abolition would have existed without these revivals. Other Christians such as David Livingstone helped expose the evils of the trade - all of them staunch and unquestioning Bible believers - with strong respect and understanding of the scriptures.

The Christian teaching on slavery has been attacked by Islamists, Marxists and Liberals. Nevertheless, we must remember that it was Islamists who were responsible for devastating the African continent with slave raiding; laws only were passed against it a few decades ago in many modern Islamic countries and some still clandestinely practice it. Marxists and other socialists showed little or no interest in fighting for the rights of black Africans until they wanted their political support in the late 20th century. Furthermore, Marxists practiced a form of state slavery in their forced labour camps. Secular liberals, while condemning slavery today didn't do much against it when slavery was socially acceptable. It was evangelical Bible-believing Christians mainly who fought to destroy the institution.

With the rise of Christianity bringing these reforms, slavery faded away first from Europe, then the British Empire; then America and the rest of the world. Therefore, it is completely consistent for the Christian to support the apostle Paul in his context in encouraging slaves to submit to their masters and to support William Wilberforce in his context of the fight to outlaw slavery. Both of these positions can be supported by scripture and it is not necessary to diminish respect for the authority of scripture by supporting both. Therefore, those who try to use the shift in policy on the issue of slavery as justification to dismiss Biblical teaching on other issues are ill informed.

Can God be referred to in the feminine?

2008-11-05T00:26:00.000-08:00

Can God be referred to in the feminine?

The post-modern/emergent method of interpreting scripture makes a number of incorrect postmodern assumptions and therefore leads people astray into all kinds of error. The latest example of this I found in the 'South African Emerging Church conversation' is referring to God in the feminine. Not that all emergents do this, but it is another example of how the movement leads people into error and tolerance of it.

Postmodernism and the Emerging Church assume amongst other things:
* The scripture is unclear on all sorts of issues where it is in fact clear. This leaves us free to doubt, question and speculate endlessly about even the fundamentals of theology.
* Belief is a personal and subjective opinion (rather certain truths being absolute) and we should respect eachothers opinions.
* We should refrain from saying that anyone else's opinion is wrong - meaning that errrant beliefs are not corrected.

http://timvictor.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/de-gendering-god-en-gendering-godde/

Tim writes: "I've adopted "Godde" as it is comfortably spoken as "God" - fitting easier into language - and a suitable amalgamation of God and Goddess and being much less clumsy in writing than "God/Goddess" or "God/-ess". I retain "S/He" where it fits and also make use of both "He" and "She" in other places, according to context."

http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=5905

Now to respond briefly to the various arguments raised on the blog links above:

* God has revealed himself as Father (not mother) and Jesus revealed himself in human form as a man (not a woman).

* Yes, I accept the argument that the image of God is shown in both male and female as a unity (as in Genesis 1-2) and not man alone. Nevertheless, I don't believe this permits us to refer to God equally as masculine and feminine. Had this been God's intention one would have found interchangable male and female references in the Bible (which one does not).

* Yes, I accept that prior to the incarnation of Christ taking on human form, God did not have a human physical body and in that sense cannot be male. Nevertheless, this is not an excuse to refer to him in the feminine. Rather the earthly concept of gender revealed in creation is a reflection of the mysterious relationship between men (human beings male and female) and God - in which God always takes the masculine (leadership role) and we take the following feminine role (or sometimes the childl following the father role). That is the pattern of the images of God and Israel and the images of the Church (Ephesians 5).

* The feminists would probably protest that assumption of human gender roles, but that is probably why they attack the gender references to God. Nevertheless, I understand the above quoted writer says he does not base his argument on feminism.

* To respond to the argument that gender ceases in heaven because there is no marriage in heaven: Yes, true, there is no marriage between people in heaven, but there is the macro scale marriage between the people of God (the bride of Christ - female) and Christ (male). Earthly marriages are just a shadow of this great mysterious cosmic marriage. So from this perspective, the gender references to God and Christ continue to be relevant.

* To respond to the argument that Christ ceases to be male, but becomes somehow both genders after his resurrection. I don't know where you get this idea from the Bible? Jesus physical body was the same physical body he had before his resurrection. It could still eat food, talk and be touched. There was no physical body left behind in the grave. It was the same body, but now glorified. Jesus in Revelation is referred to as a king - not a queen. This idea should be dismissed.

* To respond to the argument about references to feminine characterists of God in scripture. These are all in the poetic form of a simile i.e. 'God is like'. They do not say 'God is'. As a generalisation, women are better nurturers than men and tend to be more caring etc. Nevertheless, if a man happens to have such characteristics it does not then make him female.

* All God's names in the Bible are masculine.

Nevertheless, this is only one example of an errant Emerging Church belief. There are thousands of others. But if one starts with the wrong assumptions, then one will end up with a variety of wrong conclusions. Therefore I argue that postmodernism is dangerous when used as a lens to interpret scriptural doctrine and ethics.

Quotes from the 'Emerging Church Conversation' in South Africa

2008-10-31T07:08:00.000-07:00

SOME QUOTES FROM THE 'EMERGING CHURCH CONVERSATION' IN SOUTH AFRICA

To give an idea of the ideas being entertained often by leaders in the so called 'Emerging Church conversation' in South Africa, read the following quotes and follow the links. Many older pastors simply don't know the unorthodox ideas and viewpoints being discussed within the South African 'Emerging Church' movement - and thus fail to take action to speak up against and correct false teachings being spread by the movement. Should you have any other unorthodox quotes you wish to contribute to this blog, please post them as a comment below, with internet links please to authenticate. The quotes below should help everyone to see the dangerous consequences of using the ideology of postmodernism to interpret scripture.

Now some may say that most of the quotes below are not clearly taking a position, but just discussing ideas. That is one of the problems with debating postmodernists - they tend to evade making propositional statements of belief - meaning that they are very slippery to try debate against. For them truth is seen as subjective and personal rather than absolute and objective. Doubt of truth is a virtue or sign of sophistication and 'tolerance' rather than a sin. Therefore they tend to put most of their effort into undermining/erroding others absolute concepts of truth rather than proposing or defending any clear set of believes of their own. For this reason, one cannot defeat'postmodernism' simply by arguing against their defined positions - because they have few if any to argue against. Neither can one defeat them by simply 'engaging in conversation' because then one simply becomes another subjective voice in a conversation which is promoting doubt of truth. One cannot defeat postmodernism by using logic, because they do not believe in a unitary system of logic. One can only argue logically with someone who values logic and believes in objective truth. What one has to do is to show those who have not gone too far down the road of postmodernism, where their presuppositions lead by exposing their spreading of doubt in the clarity of scripture.

I have put names of those who have taken a high profile and can be deemed public figures and just initials of those who have not, although with their permission I would be happy to add their names. If anyone is offended by me quoting them here, please delete your statement referenced elsewhere and I will delete it here.

UNIVERSALISM AND HELL

"I think that even if a Christian didn't believe in universalism, they should want to! In other words, they'd want everyone to know and love God, because that's best for, well, everyone.

Is universalism, in itself threatening? I don't think so. What it *does* threaten is hermeneutics, theology and eschatology. And it can't be divorced from those, so that any discussion of the one necessarily leads to, and is influenced by, the others. Some of these are sacred cows, some are good theology. This is why it's fascinating to think about it :)" [Roger Saner]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142

"That's a good summary of the various positions and they can all be argued. I would think that a loving God/-ess who does distinguish the "sheep from the goats" actually annihilates opposition rather than tortures them eternal." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=3142&post=27425&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3066

"I personally believe that one can only come to God through Christ though I also believe that devout Jews will also go to Heaven if they live good lives. I know that that's a little bit dodge but that's what my heart feels." [SVO]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142

ON THE GENDER OF GOD

"The NT notion is one of a herald or envoy who announces the reign of God/-ess/Christ and brings it into effect." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142

"That's a good summary of the various positions and they can all be argued. I would think that a loving God/-ess who does distinguish the "sheep from the goats" actually annihilates opposition rather than tortures them eternal." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=3142&post=27425&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3066

"As historical person Jesus was male, as risen LORD Jesus is transformed and remains embodied but just as S/He transcends the limitations of our bodies so too does S/He transcend the male gender S/He had prior to the resurrection. Jesus’ humanhood continues but Jesus’ manhood does not...

It is inappropriate to continue using masculine references for Godde if by doing so we are relegating feminine references to an inferior or worse, e.g. ungodly, place. It is especially in light of this that we ought to take up the contribution from our culture, the contribution of gender-inclusive language, as a vehicle for communicating Godde clearer."

http://timvictor.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/de-gendering-god-en-gendering-godde/

I respond in more detail to some of Tim's arguments at
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=5905&post=27662&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=5905

HOMOSEXUALITY

"Every single text dealing with homosexual activity in the Bible also refers aggravating circumstances such as inhospitality, idolatory, shrine prostitution, adultery, promiscuity, lust, violence and rape. Not one of these verses has a monogamous relationship in mind. Not one! Condemning someone to eternal damnation on such tenuous evidence would therefore seem a very dangerous thing to do..." [Graeme Codrington]
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality

"In my own discussion I put forward that if we represent a God who loves(agape) unconditionally...then shouldn't we be inclusive and affirming in our approach to homosexual relationships." [A.V.]

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=2891

"Therefore, I have to ask you again, to explain how homosexuality hurts people who are not homosexual. Because only by affirming that there are real victims can you rely on most of the arguments you've put forward here." [DB]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=2891

Your comments on this blog

2008-10-15T03:24:00.001-07:00

Please post your general comments on this blog here.

Why Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten Missions and World Evangelism

2008-10-15T03:18:00.000-07:00

Why Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten Missions and World Evangelism

Many Christians view Postmodernism and the Emerging Church movement as a somewhat intellectual issue or otherwise the domain of young high-tech bloggers and not really relevant to the issues facing the core objectives of the church. In this article I argue why acceptance of postmodernism in the church threatens to undermine the task of world evangelism in the areas of: the meaning of the gospel; our right to proclaim the gospel; our response to persecution for evangelism; postmodernists misunderstanding of the gospel; and our approach for presenting the gospel.

Postmodernism is not a faraway threat. It has already deeply infiltrated the Evangelical Church, influenced the way we do church especially amongst the youth and especially the American church – but since the American church is often a centre of influence for the rest of the world, through publishing and, high profile speakers – many in South Africa are following the trend. The ‘Emerging Church’ is the formal expression of these beliefs. But informally, millions of Christians who don’t identify themselves as ‘emerging church’ already believe the same things.

How is Postmodernism influencing missions and evangelism? Ask the average Christian to stop a stranger in the street and explain the gospel, and firstly he will probably struggle to present it clearly. Secondly, he will probably question whether he has a right to stop a stranger in the street to explain the gospel. Both of these responses are influenced by postmodernism.

Firstly, it has changed the way most Christian youth view the meaning and purpose of the gospel – our core message. The traditional biblical gospel is that we have all sinned against God and are thus under his wrath and so deserve to burn in hell for eternity. But the good news is that Jesus has died and suffered in our place and if we believe this, repent of our sins and confess him as Lord, then he will save us and give us eternal life. But now we have a variety of alternative gospels based on postmodernism. An example of a new gospel is this: We all have problems which upset us and make us unhappy. Christianity offers a better alternative lifestyle and to do so, we should believe in Jesus and follow his example. If we do we will have a much more successful, happy and fulfilling life. There are many other variations on this example postmodern gospel. Basically, the gospel becomes user-friendly and here to help us. What is missing? The cross, hell, sin, repentance, eternal life. Sin, if mentioned at all is seen in terms of the harm it does to us, rather than the offence against God. The differences between the traditional biblical gospel and the new postmodern gospels are massive. Needless to say, if Christians are missing out the ‘politically incorrect’ parts in their presentation of the gospel, they are not presenting the true gospel and this is unlikely to result in many true conversions.

Secondly, Postmodernism has shifted the approach to evangelism and missions. The traditional approach to evangelism, used to be a confrontation with absolute truth and a demand to repent of sin against God (see the example of Acts 2). Now before Postmodernism arrived, the seeker-sensitive church movement began looking for ways of attracting people to come to church without offending them. This is a legitimate approach to evangelism and has resulted in some salvations. Nevertheless, there are problems. Firstly, if this is used as the only approach to evangelism, then a lot of people who are not interested in church are never going to hear the gospel. Secondly, if the gospel message itself is softened to avoid offending non-Christians then the problems mentioned in the previous paragraph arise. But now Postmodernism and the Emerging Church have taken another step away from traditional evangelism. They advocate instead the ‘conversational’ approach of dialogue. In other words, just talk to people to try to find common points of agreement and try to both understand eachother and maybe some might convert – if they don’t then you will have maybe done some other good such as promoting world peace. Christianity is then presented as an alternative lifestyle of the individual rather than absolute truth. It becomes another ‘choice’. Thus the presentation of the gospel is progressively weakened by the approach used. Traditional Christianity presented the Jesus as ‘The Way’, ‘The Truth’, ‘The life’. Postmodernism presents Jesus as ‘A Way’, ‘A Truth, ‘A Life’. The difference is massive. No more demand for repentance from the sin of rebellion against God. Just a conversation about personal religious beliefs. This is happening on a global scale as Emergent church leaders seek dialogue with other religious leaders – and sometimes some of their seeker-sensitive friends have joined them. It also happens on the local scale where Christians just ‘converse’ about religion instead of trying to convert their unsaved neighbours. Now there is nothing wrong with conversation as a prelude to evangelism, but often ‘dialogue’ substitutes for genuine ‘evangelism’. A risk is that Christians can be giving missions money to charitable works and ‘missions’ led by postmodernists, who are not using the money to present the gospel at all, but simply to do good works and engage in fruitless ‘dialogue’.

Thirdly, Postmodernists don’t see an automatic right and duty to preach the gospel to all creation (Matthew 28). Rather, they believe one has to ‘earn’ the right to present the gospel to someone without offending them by first doing good works and building relationships to present a good image of Christianity and avoid offending them. Now there is nothing wrong with doing good works and building relationships to help win people, but if we have to first ‘earn’ our credibility in these ways, then will we ever have done enough to earn the right to speak? The result is that Christians are timid and afraid to present the gospel, because like trying to earn God’s approval, we are always insecure. No. We tell people the gospel for their good because the Lord commanded us to. He has given us authority to do so – we do not need to earn it or get anyone else’s permission to do so.

Fourthly, Postmodernism is affecting Christians attitudes towards other Christians being persecuted for preaching the gospel. Since they are themselves unwilling to suffer for their faith or even present the gospel to their close friends, they find it hard to understand why Christians in other countries are willing to endure jail and torture in Islamic and Communist countries for breaking the law to preach the gospel. Therefore they fail to lobby governments such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia to stop such persecution. Persecuting government officials can happily visit and trade with free countries in the west without being confronted with their human rights abuse by Christians in the free countries. This new postmodern attitude to persecution means that the gospel can be restricted by ideologically opposed governments with impunity.

Fifthly, Postmodernism has changed the way that unconverted people interpret the gospel in Postmodern countries, such as North America, Europe and the educated class in South Africa. When Modernism was popular, people generally derided the gospel as ‘unscientific’ or ‘backward’ and did not want to hear it. Now with Postmodernism, they are quite happy to listen, but re-interpret the gospel through a postmodern lens. They view the presentation of the gospel as just an account of someone’s personal preference and experiences – not a challenge to repent of sin against a Holy God. Therefore we have to emphasise and repeat those aspects of the gospel which are politically incorrect until they hopefully get the idea that this is THE TRUTH, THE ONLY WAY no ‘a truth’, or ‘a way’. We have to emphasise that the gospel is absolute and the only truth. Sadly, I believe that much media presentation of the gospel is wrongly interpreted by the listeners and thus they miss it.

Modernism/Liberalism gutted the missions efforts of the mainline Protestant Churches in the 1920’s and 30’s. Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten to do the same to modern missions. Therefore as part of the task of world evangelism and missions, the ideology of postmodernism and the Emerging church must be fought and defeated at home.

Are aspects of the Emerging Church compatable with Christian faith?

2008-10-09T07:32:00.000-07:00

I changed the heading of this post following some detailed and interesting comments below, to better describe the topic of the comments received. Please read comments below.

Baptist Union responds to Codrington's homosexual article

2008-10-09T07:25:00.000-07:00

The Baptist Union of South Africa (BUSA) has recently responded to the publication of Graeme Codrington's article in their magazine by reaffirming their position against same-sex partnerships and saying that it was a serious error of judgment to publish a “perspective” that is neither evangelical nor representative of the Baptist Union.

Their statement passed by unanimous resolution with no abstentions at the recent 2008 General Assembly meeting stated:

SCRIPTURE AND “LOVING GAY PARTNERSHIPS

The BUSA reaffirms its conviction, based on the authority of Scripture, that God ordained marriage as a unique heterosexual union between a man and a woman. The Bible does not recognise the legitimacy of “same sex marriage”. On the contrary, the physical expression of same gender sexuality is condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.

We confess that the church has often failed to display the love of Christ in ministering to gay people. However, our conviction about homosexual practice isn’t motivated by a loveless legalism or homophobia but rather by our obedience to the clear teaching of Scripture. We believe that the re-interpretation of the Biblical texts, so as to allow for a “loving gay partnership”, is a distortion of what the Bible consistently teaches.

Response to re-interpretation of Scriptures on homosexuality

2008-08-18T02:10:00.000-07:00

Response to re-interpretation of Scriptures on homosexuality

[Introductory note by blog editor Philip Rosenthal: The following article is a response to an article 'Perspectives on homosexuality' by Graeme Codrington published in Issue 3, 2008 of Baptists Today. Codrington's article concludes "Every single text dealing with homosexual activity in the Bible also refers aggravating circumstances such as inhospitality, idolatory, shrine prostitution, adultery, promiscuity, lust, violence and rape. Not one of these verses has a monogamous relationship in mind. Not one! Condemning someone to eternal damnation on such tenuous evidence would therefore seem a very dangerous thing to do..." Codrington is a leading proponent of the Emerging Church in South Africa www.futurechurch.co.za and it is understood that his views are influenced by a postmodern/emergent interpretation of scripture.]
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality
--------------------------------------------------

Following article by Rev Mark Christopher, Living Hope Bible Church, Wynberg

It is often true that the debate surrounding the issue of homosexuality and the church has produced more heat than light. Certainly as custodians of God’s word, the church has a tremendous responsibility to address current issues, like homosexuality, in a biblically responsible way. We constantly need to remind ourselves that we must hold truth in one hand while clutching compassion in the other hand. The danger here is imbalance in either direction.

The popular maxim “What would Jesus do?” certainly applies to the issue of homosexuality. The problem today is that there are contrasting views and dissonant voices regarding just exactly what Jesus would do in response to homosexuals.

So why is there now confusion on an issue that has been fairly cut-and-dried for over 2000 years? What has changed? The answer is fairly simple and can be found in the advent of a new method of interpretation. Over the last 40 years there has been a subtle paradigm shift in the way some professing evangelicals interpret the Bible. As western society has become more postmodern, segments of the church, like the emerging church, have followed suite. In the process a New Hermeneutic has emerged to replace the literal and plain sense approach to God’s word.

One of the predominate characteristics of this new approach is that it does not simply refine the traditional method, but it completely revises it by starting with the interpreter’s context instead of the original author’s. This produces a high degree of subjectivity and suspicion, which is then injected into the text as the interpreter seeks a revised understanding of what has been plainly understood for centuries.

The postmodern interpretation gave rise to the pro-gay interpretation (PGI)
of the Bible. The PGI is heavily reliant on current culture and various philosophical streams of existential thought. This leads to the exchange of word meanings while critical aspects of a verses’ context are ignored. Sodom in Genesis 19:5 illustrates this well : PGI advocates erroneously claim the phrase “that we might know them” (yada) refers to hospitality. Yet, 19:8 uses yada in an obvious context of sexuality. The PGI conveniently avoid 19:8.

As it relates to homosexuality, the PGI begins with two cardinal presuppositions which clouds their interpretation and application of related verses : The first assumption PGI practitioners begin with is that homosexuality is a result of genetic orientation. This has never been satisfactorily proven. The science used to promote this idea is dubious at best. While it might be that some are inclined toward homosexuality that is not the same as saying one is consigned to that lifestyle. If one is only inclined, then change is possible for a new creature in Christ! Science, whether good or bad, should never serve as the launching pad for our interpretation.

The second assumption of the PGI approach supposes since homosexuality is a result of orientation, then surely there must be some allowance in scripture for those of same-sex persuasion to be true to themselves. The caveat here specifies a “loving and monogamous relationship”. Never mind that the term monogamous refers to marriage (gamos) not a stable live-in situation.

This whole idea runs directly counter to the many studies done regarding “monogamous” homosexual relationships. In the study The Male Couple 156 male couples were studied and only 7 couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship. Interestingly, all 7 couples had been together less than 5 years. The research suggests that monogamy is quite rare in homosexual couples and is the exception rather than the rule. It is therefore unrealistic to entertain the notion of relational fidelity among same-sex couples in the church.

Rather than relying on the two fallow assumptions above, we want to take our queue from one bedrock passage, Genesis 1-3. For in Genesis God established His unchanging boundaries for human sexuality within the context of a heterosexual marriage. This, combined with an understanding of the role of the Old Testament (OT) law in the New Testament (NT), should form the basis for rightly evaluating pro-gay arguments in the rest of scripture.

Genesis 1-3 is often overlooked by PGI advocates. Yet, we ignore this essential passage and its foundational forming truths to our own detriment. Though these three chapters do not speak directly of homosexuality, the foundation for understanding God’s parameters for human sexuality and gender distinction are well established here. Let us consider six contextual observations from creation that directly impact the rest of scripture. These should serve to frame the homosexual debate:

· Creation order : The first two chapters of Genesis quickly establish a pattern of creation order (1:1-2:24). The ancient Hebrew acquired his view of order based on the creative and sustaining power of Yahweh. The “goodness” in creation lies in its ordered state. An example of this principle is found in the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18: 1-30, which were given to restore and preserve God’s “good” order. Leviticus 18 details how social order in Israel was only “good” when the social network of familial relationships is properly ordered. Therefore, incest violates the order of kinship (18:6-18); homosexuality violates the order of gender distinction (18:22); and bestiality violates the order of species (18:23). These sexual boundaries were established at creation. Any violation here introduces chaos and confusion into human relationships, as our own age amply testifies.

· Gender distinction : Genesis 1:26-28 uses specific terminology to establish the distinction between the sexes—male (ish) and female (issha). The general term used for “man” in the OT is adam (1:26), which speaks of humankind as a species. Genesis 1:27 uniquely differentiates adam into specific genders of male and female. Both unique biology and chromosomal distinction bear witness to this. This vital distinction is maintained throughout the whole of scripture.

· God’s image : As a subsequent corollary, Genesis 1:26-28 declares that man is distinct from the rest of creation because humanity is created in the image of God. Both genders reflect that image in very different, yet, complementary ways. A man and a woman together in a marital relationship mirror the image of God in ways the rest of creation can not. Any attempt to change this image through the androgynizing effects (merging of the sexes) of homosexuality, transexuality, or transvestism results in marring God’s image.

· Procreation : In Genesis 1:28 the man and the woman are blessed with the task of being the progenitors of the human race. In this, procreation is portrayed in a positive and normative light. This heterosexual union is the standard relationship for achieving this according to Genesis 2:24. Though procreation is not the only reason for sexuality, it is a very good reason which is often neglected and scoffed at in our pansexual age.

· Marriage : The first marriage is recorded in Genesis 2:18-25. The only aspect of God’s pre-fall creation that was “not good” was Adam being alone. So God blessed Adam with a complement (help meet) who made up that which was lacking in Adam! Though Eve was very different from Adam, she was still much like him. She was the perfect corresponding opposite for Adam. It is this relationship that ultimately serves to mirror and illustrate the relationship that Christ has with His bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). To reinforce his argument, Paul reaffirms the creation ideal as he makes this comparison (Gen.2:24; Matt.19:5; Mark 10:7ff)! Clearly, same-sex relationships can never adequately reflect the relationship Christ has with His Bride.

John Piper summarizes the original purpose for marriage well, “Eve was like Adam yet very unlike him … this provides a unique opportunity for profound unity, and intimacy to exist. In this we see that God created heterosexuality not homosexuality. God’s first institution was marriage not fraternity.”

· Reaffirmed : One might rightly ask if the creation account is maintained throughout scripture? Did God ever amend His plan? Significantly, when Christ was being grilled by the Pharisees on the issue of divorce, how did He respond? In Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:5-9, Jesus reasserted the creation mandate from Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:24! Even in light of the fall, God’s original blueprint remains unaltered. The fall and the resulting curse just make it more difficult to maintain. This highlights the need for redemption.

Those who maintain that Jesus never condemned homosexuality rely on unconvincing arguments from silence. Christ never condemned other forms of sexual deviancy either--like bestiality, peadophilia, incest, necrophilia, or fornication. But when He underscored the Genesis account for marriage He said all that ever needed to be said on the issue. By reaffirming the creation ideal of heterosexual monogamy, Jesus covered all the potential bases in one succinct and definitive statement!

Another biblical context that is often summarily dismissed in the PGI scheme is the place of OT law in the NT. PGI logic assumes that passages like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are just as irrelevant as dietary laws and the mixing of fabrics. Yet, Romans 10:4 declares that “Christ is the end of the law.” This means Christ was the crescendo of the law. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In view of His finished work on the cross, Christ is now superimposed over the Mosaic law and has transformed it into the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2).

So the law remains an authoritative part of scripture. But now law must be read through the lens of the cross. For example, we do not need animal sacrifice to stand in the presence of God, but we do need sacrifice—the sacrifice of Christ. Likewise, the husband who loves his wife, as Christ does the Church, will duly consider his menstruating wife’s (Leviticus 20:18) needs and condition above and beyond his own.

The law of Christ insures moral unity exists between the OT and NT. It has always been wrong to murder, rape, steal, to have sexual relations with an animal, to commit adultery, and to commit homosexual acts. God’s standard of righteousness has never been altered, but these righteous demands were met by Christ.

In light of His affirmation of the creation account, plus His perspective on the law, how would Christ respond to homosexuality today (WWJD)? The literal method of interpretation can confidently assert that Jesus would unashamedly preach the gospel, as He did to the woman at the well in John 4 and the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11. Upon repentance, He would utter these glorious words of liberty, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.”! How can His church do any less?

(Note: Due the space limitations it was not possible to deal with many arguments often marshaled by the pro-gay advocates. Those wanting a summary paper answering many of arguments can download this summary at www.lhbc.co.za . Just follow the link Papers and Booklets.)

Why so much interest in Emerging Church in South Africa?

2008-08-15T08:04:00.000-07:00

Please click the link below to see some really interesting data on Google searches on the term 'emerging church'. South Africa ranks second after the United States, which is amazing considering our small population with broadband access. I was told by a Scottish minister that the Emerging church is not making much of an impact in the United Kingdom compared with America. Also interesting the number of Emerging Church leaders who have recently been in South Africa or are currently here: Brian McLaren, Scott McKnight, Shane Claireborne. I can't say what the reason is, but wonder if factors could include a post-apartheid and post-marxism ideological vacuum, which it is trying to fill. Also note the publicity it has had in the past 12 months with articles in Today Magazine, Joy Magazine and Baptists Today. So not all these searches are people necessarily in favour of it, but maybe just curious as to what it is about.

http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=emerging%20church&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q

Emergents respond to Joy magazine article on Emerging Church

2008-08-12T05:48:00.000-07:00

Certain Emerging Church supporters have responded to the July 2008 article on the Emerging Church.

http://www.emergingafrica.info/blog/2008/08/06/joy-magazine-ec

http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/lies-about-truth

I also posted some dialogue responding on the first blog.

Useful Web links on the Emerging Church Movement

2008-08-11T07:38:00.000-07:00

Useful Web links on the Emerging Church Movement

* The main group promoting the emerging church in South Africa is http://www.futurechurch.co.za/
* Examples of unbiblical quotations from principal Emerging Church leaders:
- Brian McClaren http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
- Rob Bell http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2007/03/rob-bells-unbiblical-views.html
http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/freswick_casey_feb06_v56_n02.htm
- Steve Chalke http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Message-Jesus-Steve-Chalke/dp/customer-reviews/0310248825
* A chart comparing post-modernism to other worldviews:
http://www.summit.org/resources/worldview_chart/#wv-chart-expl
* Overview of movement (mostly in favour but including some balancing criticism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* A list of some key leaders opposing the emerging church movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* Helpful web sites against the Emerging Church are:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Emerging-Church/
http://www.honeyridge.co.za/node/148
http://postbiblical.info/
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
http://www.9marks.org/

100 words to explain the Emerging Church

2008-08-11T07:35:00.001-07:00

100 words to explain the Emerging Church (by Philip Rosenthal)
Previously published in Joy Magazine 2008

The 'Emerging Church' is an attempt to respond to the philosophy of Postmodernism by accommodating it in the church to varying degrees, both in doctrine and in practice. Postmodernism values experiences, stories, relationships and feelings, but devalues absolute truth and questions our ability to know it certainly. It also encourages mixing of different ideas and methods without trying to logically fit them together. Aspects, of the Emerging Church, such as experimenting with new service formats, are not always harmful. But when these assumptions are used to interpret Biblical doctrine or ethics, it can result in serious error, doubt, weakness, confusion and moral relativism. We must defend the gospel against this undermining of our confidence in truth.

WHAT IS POSTMODERNISM?

2008-08-11T07:34:00.000-07:00

WHAT IS POSTMODERNISM?
By: Philip Rosenthal

Many people have asked me to explain in simple language what is ‘post-modernism’? Most academic articles on the subject will leave people more confused than when they started reading. The simplest way of understanding it is by first explaining post-modern architecture and then drawing a comparison with philosophy and theology. In the past, every building had a uniform theme. It was either Classical or Gothic or Victorian or Edwardian or Modern or Japanese or Indian or whatever – but only one theme from one time period or geographical area. Post-modern architecture doesn’t have a consistent theme. It is a mix of themes from many time periods. So, for example, the Victoria and Alfred Waterfront and Canal Walk Shopping complexes in Cape Town, both use post-modern architecture. They borrow ideas from many different time periods and themes and mix them all together. They don’t need or want a unifying theme. What is wrong with this? Nothing. It is just a preference – you either like it or you don’t like it.

But when you apply that attitude to philosophy or theology, the result is confusion and relativism and eventually a breakdown of absolute morals and belief. Roman Catholics and Protestants and Muslims disagree on certain issues – but they at least agree that truth is absolute and unified. Post-modernists don’t. To post-modernists, truth is just a subjective cultural or personal belief. To them, you can happily take ideas from different places and mix them together in any way you like without the need for any kind of logical continuity. Most of them don’t even want to argue about what is true, because they see truth itself as just a human opinion. In fact, they view anyone who is firm about truth and morals as arrogant and judgemental. Since truth is subjective, what is important is people’s feelings and relationships. Those who stand for truth at the expense of feelings and relationships are thus the problem.

While Modernism tended to reject historic Christian theology, Post-modernism borrows from it regularly. Their teachers will happily combine recitation ancient creeds with aspects of Catholicism and Reformed theology. This appears to give them some historic authenticity. But the problem is that they way they do it is void of any logic or coherence. It is just a case of picking various different ice cream flavours and putting them together into one cone.

Another difference between Modernism and Postmodernism is that while Modernism emphasised individual rights and opinions, Post-Modernism emphasises cultural group thinking. Thus Christian truth and morality is relegated to a cultural group belief rather than a moral absolute applicable to everyone. The chief virtue is thus tolerance of other cultural groups. Also called ‘Political Correctness’. The chief vice is intolerance. Post-modernism accommodates Christianity quite happily provided that you respect the right of other groups to do whatever they like – including for example practicing homosexuality or committing abortion. So long as you don’t impose your views on anyone else, then you are accepted. Post-modernist Christians view Bible teaching not as absolutes which all must obey, but as the views of our particular cultural group, which we should not impose on others lest we offend them. Sound familiar? Do you see things this way? Maybe you have already been partially seduced by Post-Modernism.

Another difference is that while Modernism attacked the truth of scripture, Post-modernism attacks not the truth of scripture, but our ability to understand it. For them, scripture is mysterious and we can never be certain exactly what it means. Post-modernist teachers try to cast doubt on what it means and see such doubt as a sophisticated virtue. Thus for them, we can never be quite sure what the Bible says about for example homosexuality and abortion – so being unsure, we should not impose our personal belief on anyone else.

The Emerging Church can be described also as the third generation of theological liberalism. The first generation was Modernism – the elevation of human reason above scripture. This was advocated first by German theologians in the 1850s and spread from there through the rest of the world – destroying most of mainline Protestantism. They viewed their new beliefs outdated historic Christianity in a similar way that modern technology outdates old technology. The second generation was Neo-orthodoxy, invented by Karl Barth, which argued that the scripture was spiritually true but not necessarily true in other respects. What was important for the Neo-orthodox was your ‘spiritual experience’ of the Bible. They tried to marry existential philosophy with Christianity. The third generation of liberalism is now the ‘Emerging church’, which is trying to marry postmodernism with Christianity. Essentially, this whole stream of liberalism is following the secular culture. In response to Modernism, Orthodox Christians re-grouped to form what they called ‘Evangelicalism’ which rejected Modernism. Problem is though that liberalism, like a computer virus is changing its form all the time. Most evangelicals don’t understand that that the Emerging Church is just a new form of liberalism and so their defences are down. It is being taught at Evangelical Bible Seminaries and heretical books are published by what we thought were Evangelical publishing houses – especially Zondervan. The Emerging Church is not a new brand of Evangelicalism – it is a new brand of liberalism. It needs to be fought with the same strength as we fought the old liberalism (Modernism).

Many Christians have accepted post-modernism without realising it – and have already been applying these false assumptions for a decade or so. What is new is that a group of people calling themselves the ‘Emerging Church’ are now consciously promoting this false assumption. Most of the followers of this group still seem on most points orthodox Christians. But the problem is that as soon as one accepts the false assumptions of post-modernism, and apply this to theology, you go down a slippery slope that leads eventually to being allowed to believe whatever you like – and a lot of people end up in heretical belief and those who apply it practically, immorality in behaviour.

This month, one of South Africa’s chief proponents of Postmodernism and the Emerging Church movement published an article in ‘Baptists Today’ arguing that the Bible does not prohibit monogamous homosexuality. He takes each of the scriptures dealing with homosexuality and tries to cast doubt on the meaning. Space does not permit here a response to his heretical arguments – but the point is that these wrong assumptions lead to seriously wrong conclusions in reading the Bible. If you read the writings of various other leaders who have strayed into the Emerging Church – many come from Orthodox Christian backgrounds, but after they have been there a while, many of them stray into serious and heretical doctrinal error. Some people are going to listen to what I have written above and say – that sounds very academic – why does it matter? Well, it matters because if you have a wrong understanding of the meaning of truth, then you will get to seriously wrong conclusions on doctrine and morality. Thus, one cannot just treat this as an academic theological debate. It is something which if tolerated is going to lead people into serious sin and for some eternal damnation. Therefore, these false teachers must be stopped.

Now not everyone who goes by the name 'Emerging Church' is necessarily a theological liberal or applying post-modernist thought to theology. Many, like those who like post-modern architecture are just applying it to things like church service format. And I don't label such people heretics. There is nothing evil about this. But those who do apply it to theology are starting down a slippery slope that will lead them into doubt, confusion, possibly heresy, likely tolerance of evil and possibly immoral behaviour. We have to stop this.

Will you stand up and speak out against these wolves in sheeps clothing that are preying on Christ's church?

[Certain Emerging Church leaders have registered protest at my reference above to 'wolves in sheeps clothing', so I clarify that, while I disagree with all of them in their response to post-modernism, I don't apply the term 'wolves' to all of them, but to those who stray into heresy or sow doubt or undermine the importance of core Christian doctrines such as the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement (Christ dying in our place), the sanctity of life of the unborn, the requirement to keep sex within man-woman marriage only.]

Emergent or Divergent? When Doubt Becomes a Virtue

2008-08-11T07:30:00.000-07:00

Emergent or Divergent?
When Doubt Becomes a Virtue

By Tim Cantrell – August 2007, Sr. Pastor, Honeyridge Baptist Church, Johannesburg

With endorsements from: Rev. Leigh Robinson, Rosebank Union; Rev. Frank Retief, CESA; Rev. Colin Bishop; Rev. Rowland Myburg, BU President

(Article was previously published in Today Magazine and Baptists Today)

If you were about to undergo an operation and your doctor planned to use you as a guinea pig for new, emerging methods, should you know about it? If your bank was going to re-invest your money in high-risk ventures, should you know about it? Of course! Yet in churches today, leaders are jumping on the bandwagon of the latest theology, called the Emergent Church, while their people know little of the consequences at stake.

This is where a magazine like Baptist Today can serve a vital role in alerting ordinary church members to trends and equipping them to hold their leaders accountable. We too easily forget that it is the biblical responsibility of each member of the congregation to guard the purity of the church (Acts 17:11; 1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 5:19; Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 2-3).
I write this article to sound a warning out of love for Christ’s church and out of a desire to “guard the trust” of Scripture that is under attack (1 Tim. 6:20-21), so that we will stand firm in our faith and fulfil our mission to the ends of the earth.

What is the Emergent Church?
As defined in the March 2007 issue of Christian Living Today, “the emerging church is a conversational, grassroots movement to contextualise the gospel for the changing world of the 21st century”. These Christian leaders call themselves ‘emerging’ because they believe that as Western culture emerges out of modernity and into postmodernity there must be a new, ‘emerging’, more relevant way of doing church and reaching our world. (Note: The very nature of the movement defies definition; some treat ‘emergent’ and ‘emerging’ as synonymous, but for the sake of clarity and fairness I will focus only on the strand of this conversation that labels itself “Emergent Church,” hereafter, “EC” [Cf. “An Emerging Church Primer” at www.9marks.org ].)

The most prominent leader in this EC ‘conversation’ is Brian McLaren, a pastor and author that Time Magazine proclaimed as “one of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America”. His influence is also growing in South Africa as he has just completed his third tour in three years. Another key leader related to the EC, who visited South Africa last year, is Rob Bell. His Nooma videos are especially popular. Likewise, Erwin McManus is an influential voice related to the EC and he too visited South Africa this year.

The EC is a reactionary movement that wins a hearing through insightful critiques of evangelicalism that resonate with many who are disenchanted by a weak and ineffective church. No one can deny that evangelicals have often failed in our passion for the lost, social concern, good works, deeds of love, abuse of power, abuse of Scripture, and lack of authenticity and humility. We have also been uncritical at times in conforming to modernity. But sadly, the EC appears no less naïve in their zeal to conform now to postmodernity. Some of their descriptions of the problem may be accurate, but the solutions they offer are more culture-driven than Scripture-driven.

What are they actually teaching?
Few people realise the doctrines that leaders of the EC are teaching. For example, they teach:
· That it should not shake our faith if we found out “that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry... and that the virgin birth was just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in...” (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, pp. 26-27).

· That we should shy away from describing the Bible in such terms as “the authority,” “infallible,” or “inerrant” (McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy, p. 164).

· That it is fine for leaders of the EC movement to frankly have no idea what “most of the Bible means” (Rob & Kristen Bell, Christianity Today article, Nov. 2004).

· That the church should consider taking “a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements” against homosexuality (http://blog.christianitytoday.com).

· That we should not be so concerned with “being saved” or finding “right answers”, and that any Christian who sees a difference between us and the world is probably arrogant (Christian Living Today magazine, March 2007, p. 56).

· That the church should be inconclusive about the eternal destiny of non-Christians and should change its historic belief in hell (McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 111-114; The Story We Find Ourselves In, pp. 167-68).

· That you believe in “a form of cosmic child abuse” if you say that Jesus died to pay the price demanded by His Father’s holy wrath (Steve Chalke, The Lost Message of Jesus, Zondervan: 2003 [foreword by Brian McLaren], p. 182).

· One of the chief proponents of the Emerging Church in South Africa is saying that he must now “leave church” and “give up belief in God in order to find God” (www.futurechurch.co.za).

Not everyone identified with the EC teaches all these things. But these are views held by leading voices in the movement. And any Christian who knows His Bible should be alarmed when hearing of such aberrant views. Even some leaders from within the wider emerging church movement are sounding the alarm, such as Mark Driscoll who writes:

…the Emergent Church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity. (Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev., p. 22)
…I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell…. (Driscoll, www.TheResurgence.com) (Cf. also Jason Carlson, “My Journey Into and Out of the Emergent Church,” http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com).

What is the greatest concern about the Emerging Church?
There is one doctrine that the EC attacks most, a doctrine upon which all Christian faith and teaching rests: the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture. This has been a cornerstone of evangelical belief ever since the time of the Reformation – the settled confidence that, on the whole, the Bible is not obscure or ambiguous but that it is clear and understandable for the ordinary Christian. Saints have faced persecution and suffering with unshakable certainty because their faith was grounded in the clarity of God’s Word. Jesus frequently appealed to and assumed the clarity of Scripture when He rebuked the religious leaders: “Have you not read in the Scriptures? Do you not know?” (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:14; 21:42; 22:31, etc.)

But McLaren and the EC celebrate their ignorance of Scripture and their certainty that no one can be certain of what Scripture says. McLaren summed up his motto well when he wrote, “Certainty is overrated” (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/). But Luke’s whole aim for Christians was that they might “know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4). And Scripture says, “faith is being…certain of what we do not see” (Heb. 11:1).

EC leaders say it is more humble to embrace mystery than to seek certainty. But this is arrogance disguised as humility, claiming to be wiser than God regarding whether He spoke clearly or not. Here’s how God defines humility: “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2). God is not looking for those who only dialogue or converse about His Word, but for those who take it seriously enough to tremble and obey.

McLaren even wants to throw out certainty about the gospel, the very “evangel” that defines evangelicalism! He writes, “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet…. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy” (Christianity Today, Nov. 2004). Because authorities have been certain about wrong things in the past (a flat earth, apartheid, etc.), McLaren jumps to the conclusion that we must beware of thinking we’re right. But the only way for a preacher to be unashamed and approved by God is to be sure that he has “rightly divided the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Paul was so sure of the rightness of the gospel that he told the Galatians anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).

God’s Word treats certainty of spiritual truth as essential. To be saved is to “come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:4); it is to join those who “believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:3). It is not a complement to be described as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).

McLaren believes that we must accommodate other religions – that new converts to Christ would not necessarily have to leave Buddhism or Hinduism, and that we need more “gentle and respectful dialogue” with other religions in order to improve Christianity (A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 255-60). But one searches in vain to find the OT prophets or NT apostles suggesting that conversion could come at such a small cost, or that the truth becomes richer by bartering with error.

Why certainty matters
While writing this article, I received a testimony from a young pastor whose wife was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. He writes:

I am more convinced than ever as I walk through this valley that God’s truth is all that can sustain us – Satan wants to rob God’s people of this confidence so that in their day of battle they will shrink back or grow weary and abandon well doing. [The EC] may be a new and avant-garde thing to discuss on the lecture circuit and in books – but in the valley of the shadow of death it falls pathetically short when measured against the blessing and comfort that comes from accurate, confident exposition of Scripture!

God pours His peace into the soul that is certain of His promises. Any movement that exalts doubt over certainty and that undermines the clarity of God’s Word is a movement that endangers the faith of God’s people. The EC is not evangelical at all if it throws out the clarity of the gospel. It should be classified as “divergent” rather than “emergent”.

The Emerging Threat of the Emerging Church Movement

2008-08-11T07:24:00.000-07:00

THE EMERGING THREAT OF THE 'EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT'

By: Philip Rosenthal Philip@rosenthal.net ; www.christianview.org
Last updated: 8 April ‘08
INTRODUCTION 1
BUT WHY IS THE 'EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT' SO ATTRACTIVE? 2
BUT WHAT IT WRONG WITH ITS TEACHING? 2
WHY DOES THIS MATTER? 3
AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX? 4
Types of emerging church leaders and participants 4
Answering the evangelistic argument 5
WHAT ARE THE TACTICS OF THE EMERGENT CHURCH? 6
HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND TO THE EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT? 7
MORE INFORMATION 8

INTRODUCTION

Recently, Christian bookshops have started to stock books published by leaders of the 'emerging church movement'. Speakers use new words like 'missional'. Christian blogs discuss the issue. Pastors are told that they need to adapt their message to reach a new 'post-modern generation'. Some of the statements of these leaders can seem worrying, but their attacks on the established church resonate with many who are fed up with hypocrisy, authoritarianism and institutionalism. Nobody wants to be seen as 'out of date', so they hesitate before challenging this movement. What is this all about? Is it just a new fad? Is it a new movement in evangelicalism?

I argue this is something much more dangerous and serious, and about which every Biblical Christian needs to be warned. The 'emerging church movement' is an attempt to merge Biblical Christian faith with the religious worldview of Postmodernism. It includes a range of responses. At the one end of the spectrum are those who are just trying to adapt our methods to appeal to Postmodern youth without compromising the gospel. The other end of the spectrum to which the most popularly read leaders belong, however, are essentially preaching a new way of interpreting scripture and a different gospel. This is I believe the most serious threat to Biblical Christian faith to 'emerge' in the last hundred years. I predict it will be the primary ideological battle in the church of at least the first half of the 21st century.

This attempt by another religion to infiltrate Christianity is similar in many ways to the attempts of Gnostic mystics to infiltrate the early church in the first few centuries. It is similar to the attempt to infiltrate Christianity with Modernism in the 19th and early 20th centuries; or with Liberal Christianity. Marxism tried to infiltrate Christianity with Liberation Theology in the late 20th century. Animists have attempted to merge with Christianity in certain African Independent churches. The Interfaith movement has attempted to merge Christianity with the New Age movement.

It is essential to understand that this is not a new stream of Christianity. It is an attempt to merge Christianity with another totally different religion. It is an attack on the core of the gospel. Orthodox Protestants have more in common with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox than they have with the 'Emergent Church' At least these major streams agree on the basic concept of absolute truth. The 'emergent church' does not.

In the past five years, a number of popular evangelical Christian writers, particularly those on the fringes, have abandoned orthodox Christianity in favour of the emerging church movement. You may find an author you like now promoting this heresy, without telling you he has changed his views. Evangelicalism is bleeding to the Emerging Church/Postmodernism now in the same way Protestantism was bleeding to Modernism in the late 19th century.

Tragically, many Christian leaders are not seeing the threat at present. Many good pastors who are friends of mine have already got involved in it. Thus 'emerging church' books are being published by reputable Christian publishers, sold in evangelical Christian bookshops and their speakers are allowed to speak at Christian conferences. It has already taken over many evangelical Bible seminaries overseas. This is sadly similar to the way Modernism infiltrated both Protestantism and Catholicism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. If it is not fought with all the strength we have now, it will likely either take over or force schism in most of the currently evangelical denominations.

BUT WHY IS THE 'EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT' SO ATTRACTIVE?

Answer: Because it is an attempt to unite Christianity with Postmodernism, and Postmodernism is the dominant worldview of the educated elite of our society - particularly the younger generation (under 35 years old). Almost every university course, film house, newspaper and TV programme they are exposed to is promoting this ideology. And if they attend a Bible believing church or listen to Bible believing Christian radio, then the two
ideologies don't fit together. Real Christianity to many of them seems somehow intolerant and out of date. 'Emerging Church' Christianity does fit with the trendy youth culture. You can be 'cool' with your Post-modern peers and educators and yet still be ‘a Christian’.

But is this an authentic Biblical response to a culture gone astray? No! The correct Biblical response is to challenge the unbiblical culture with the truth of scripture, however unpopular that might make us. Jesus was despised and persecuted and so were his apostles (Hebrews 13:13). We must be ready to do the same. In the same way that the Judaisers of Galatians tried to adapt Christianity to avoid persecution (Galations 6:12), so the 'Emerging Church' tries to create a more tolerant, less certain, uncontroversial Christianity which does not offend the world.

Actually, many of our educated Christian youth are already Post-modern thinkers. They have already tried informally to merge Christianity and postmodernism in their own minds. It is just that now a group of Christian leaders is formalising this merger and articulating it as a movement and a theology.

BUT WHAT IT WRONG WITH ITS TEACHING?

There are many problems with the teaching of the 'Emerging Church', but most serious is its attack on the importance of truth and the certainty of the meaning of scripture. In postmodernist/emergent belief, truth, doctrine and logic is not all that important. What is much more important is tolerance, relationships, stories and people's feelings. Truth is not considered absolute but rather subjective. Truth relates subjectively to the human who hears it rather than to the absolute reference point of God. Hitherto, Biblical Christians may often disagree with each other, but they argue in the hope of convincing each other because they believe something must be true and the opposite must be false. Postmodernists don't see the world this way. Instead of an absolute truth to search for, all there is are people's opinions, and we must all respect each other’s opinions.

While Modernists attacked the truth of the scriptures, Postmodernists do not attack the scripture itself, but rather our ability to understand it. They refuse any systematic attempt to try to understand and interpret the scriptures. They just let everyone pick and choose what they want to believe and what not believe, without attempting to fit these beliefs together logically. The result is that scripture interpretation becomes entirely subjective to each individual. You can believe whatever you 'feel' like believing, as long as you respect everyone else's right to do the same. In their view, for example, it is simply impossible to determine certainly whether or not the Bible condones abortion or homosexuality.

They theological view truth as something that is 'emerging', 'progressive' and moving forward, rather like technology. Each generation is more enlightened than the last. That leaves open the door for the next generation of Christians to believe something totally different to us.

See MORE INFORMATION on page 8, for web links to some unbiblical quotations from Emerging church leaders).
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

The Emerging Church/ Postmodern interpretation of the Bible matters because it's subjective interpretation of the Bible is unbiblical, false and wrong. But it has damaging practical consequences for numerous other issues.

Firstly, if the Bible's teaching on ethics is mysterious, then we can never understand it. So, what authority does it then have? Emerging church supporters may apply their interpretation of the Bible to themselves. They may accept that the authority of their church or denomination to determine policy for church discipline. But how can they challenge anyone else outside their group’s belief? How can they tell non-Christians not to abort a baby or the government to ban abortion or 'same-sex marriage'?

Answer: They don't. Emerging church leaders generally discourage this. For example, their principal false prophet, Brian McLaren has called for a 5-year moratorium on speaking against homosexuality.
( http://postbiblical.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=1). The Emerging Church beliefs fit well with the pro-choice position on abortion. “I would not have an abortion myself, but I will not try to stop someone else from having one”. A post-modern church leader recently took the position ‘Our church denomination will not perform same-sex marriages, but we think the government should allow same sex-marriage for those willing to do them’.

So Emerging Church leaders undermine the whole basis for Christian activism against sin in society. They are not sure what is right and wrong themselves, and they are embarrassed by others who do. What were formally moral absolutes now become a 'grey area'. Just at the time when courage is needed to fight the evils such as abortion and homosexuality in society, the emergent church leaders discourage people from taking a stand.

Secondly, they attack core Biblical teachings as unimportant. While many Modernists will argue there was no virgin birth, some post-modernists will argue that they believe there was a virgin birth, but that if it were proved that there were no virgin birth, that would not affect their faith. What is the problem with this? Precisely because, if there was no virgin birth, then the scriptures are false, and if the scriptures are false then our faith in them is false.

Actually truth does matter. In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul explains how our faith hangs on the doctrine of the resurrection. Many other teachings of scripture are similarly integrally linked to the core of our faith. By arguing that truth is not important, they pave the way for others to follow into complete unbelief and apostasy.

Thirdly, if truth is not absolute, why should we care about those who are persecuted for their faith? Generally postmodernist Christians don't care. If truth is not clear in scripture, then why suffer for truth? Why not just compromise or shut up on that aspect of the truth which is under attack and thus escape persecution. To the postmodernist mind, Christian's suffering unpopularity, jail, torture and death for their faith seems weird. This is why the World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission has identified Postmodernism as a major threat to religious liberty (Newsletter 15 February 2008).

While this section highlights the problems of post-modernism in interpreting the biblical position on a handful of ethical and theological problems, it potentially affects all aspects of ethics and doctrine. The result is that people hold to a weak, subjective view of ethics and doctrine that is highly tolerant of alternative viewpoints and behaviours.

Three hundred years ago, Protestantism meant a specific set of beliefs. Modernism re-defined Protestantism by destroying its boundaries and re-defining its terminology. ‘Fundamentalism’ was an attempt to re-define these boundaries. Many believed the boundaries set by Fundamentalism were too narrow and so created the broader category of ‘Evangelicalism’. The Emerging Church is a movement without boundaries. While claiming to be a part of Evangelicalism, it is attempting to re-define ‘Evangelical’ in a manner that is so broad that it can accept all kinds of heresy and unbiblical behaviour. We must look not only at what it leaders do and believe but what they tolerate. Before removing the fences we must consider why they were put up there in the first place and what has happened historically to groups which remove the fences.
AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX?

Some 'emerging church' followers reading the above are probably going to protest at some point and say 'you are misrepresenting me' and 'I don't believe that'. Or 'my pastor is a good Bible believing Christian and he is involved in this' - are you saying he is a heretic?
Types of emerging church leaders and participants

No. Firstly, there are many different streams in the emerging/ emergent church/ 'missional' movement. Secondly, the post-modern belief system itself encourages diversity of belief. Thirdly, different people joining the movement have mixed it in different proportions with Biblical Christianity. Some are mostly Biblical and a little post-modern. Others are mostly post-modern and a little biblical. Some fall within the boundaries of Orthodox Christianity, some do not. Fourthly, post-modern beliefs have logical implications, which will lead progressively to a straying away from belief in the Bible. New 'emerging church' followers have not realised where their new 'uncertain' Biblical interpretation method will lead them. For now most of them remain mostly biblical, but in a decade or two they will have strayed further. Future generations of 'emerging church' followers will probably slide all the way to apostasy and rejection of Christian ethics, as many modernists have done.

One must draw a very big distinction between Christians who are trying to reach ‘post-modern’ youth by adopting cultural elements of post-modernism in their style of preaching and service format on the one hand and Christians who are re-interpreting the Bible through a post-modern lens. Some of the former category, call themselves ‘emerging church’, while others do not. My big problem is with the latter category – and I would prefer if the former category disassociated with the latter type and called themselves something different.

There are some areas where Christianity does not clash with post-modernism and on these areas we can adapt without compromising on essentials to try to win over youth influenced by post-modernism. For example, post-modernists tend to prefer stories illustrating a point to abstract theory. Jesus also taught that way in his parables. The Bible is full of stories and so is your personal testimony. Secondly, one can cater for their desire for meaningful relationships. Thirdly, we can also affirm the unity of true orthodox Christians across sectarian boundaries. Fourthly, the emerging church often encourages experimenting with changing the format of the worship service, often re-including elements practised centuries ago or borrowing ideas from contemporary youth culture. While this should be done with caution, truth is sacred, but service format is not.

The issue is very similar to evangelising any culture. For example, there is good and bad in traditional African culture. For example the emphasis on the extended family is more biblical than Western culture. Nevertheless, as Christians, we can’t compromise with ancestor worship. Missionaries to post-moderns need to filter the good from the bad.
Answering the evangelistic argument

Now some orthodox, Bible believing Christians have aligned themselves with the ‘emerging movement’. For example Mark Driscoll writes “In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.” http://www.theresurgence.com/welcome

Such people often see the ‘Emerging Church’ movement as a means to reach a generation of culturally post-modern youth. A question must be asked as to why they choose to align themselves in the same group and under the same name, with a movement whose principal leaders are not doctrinally orthodox Bible believers? By doing so, do they not risk lending credibility and leading others astray to follow the heretical leaders who share the same banner? Why do they not call themselves by another name and clearly disassociate themselves from the heretical leaders and beliefs? For example, they could use the name ‘Mission to Post-moderns’. By failing to demarcate a clear boundary between evangelical Christianity and the Post-modern adaptation of the gospel, they leave the door open for false teachers who use the same label and banner. The question is which direction is the influence mostly going? Are these Christians mostly influencing Post-moderns to become Orthodox Christians or are they leaving the door open for Orthodox Christians to be seduced into Postmodernism?

To respond to the evangelism argument, I would give two responses. Firstly, the main reason why Post-moderns fail to convert is not because the gospel is not formatted in a trendy culturally appealing ‘Post-modern way’. Actually, Post-moderns are generally more open to listen to the gospel than their Modernist predecessors, but they tend to just filter the gospel through their Post-modern lens, which treats it as just another opinion – and thus evade the challenge to repent of sin. They don’t see themselves as sinners because they don’t understand the concept of sin and thus don’t see any need to repent. Thus to really reach Post-moderns with the gospel, one needs to spend double the effort emphasising the differences with Biblical Christianity – the basic themes of absolute truth, God’s absolute moral standards, sin and repentance. Similarly a new generation of weak post-modern Christians has grown up who see their feelings as more important than their holiness and right belief. To really help such Christians, one needs to bring them back to orthodox Christian basics. I argue we need a more challenging gospel presentation emphasising the differences rather than the similarities with postmodernism.

Secondly, the emergent church tends to blur the focus in evangelism from calling the ‘lost to repentance’ to ‘dialogue’ with other religions. While this may result in less people being offended by Christianity, I believe it will likely lead to a diversion of effort from evangelism to ‘dialogue’, false conversions of those who have not really repented of their sins and ultimately less people being converted to the true faith.
WHAT ARE THE TACTICS OF THE EMERGENT CHURCH?

Firstly, emerging church leaders like to confuse Christians with difficult questions from scripture. Then instead of encouraging study to answer these questions, they try to lead them to the conclusion that scripture is unclear on ethics and so we should not impose our beliefs on anyone else. Doubt and tolerance become virtues, while faith and standing for truth become vices.

While it is true that there are some things in scripture that are hard to understand, those things which are essential for righteous living and salvation are fairly clear and there is a consensus of interpretation among those who respect the authority of scripture.

Secondly, they try to argue that they are 'up to date' and that orthodox Christian belief is outdated. This is inherent in the terms 'post-modern', 'emergent' 'future church' - as if there was a forward march of history, which is unstoppable and we should not get left behind. Modernists, Progressives, New Agers also use this manipulative language to try to link their belief to a time period. Everyone in this time period now must believe what they do.

Thirdly, they try to label orthodox Bible believing Christians who believe in absolutes, reason from the scriptures and stand up for truth as judgemental, bigoted, intolerant Pharisees. In doing so, they distort the
Biblical meaning of judgmentalism and substitute a post-modern meaning to the term and evade the real reasons why Jesus fought with the Pharisees. Many Christians, afraid of such ugly labels, shrink from challenging emerging church leaders in debate.

Fourthly, they attack the problems plaguing the contemporary church such as authoritarianism and hypocrisy. While these problems are real, the answers offered by the 'emerging church', such as simply lowering the moral standards required for biblical church discipline and speaking out on moral issues in society on grounds of 'non-judgmentalism', are false.

Fifthly, many emerging church leaders do a lot of good works and fight for some good causes. For example, some run charities, which help the poor. How could people doing so much good be teaching error? Modernists also did a lot of good works and fought for good causes, often more so than orthodox, but pietistic, Christians.

Sixthly, 'emergent church' leaders try to pose as orthodox Bible believing Christians. They publish through respected Bible believing publishers like Zondervan and join evangelical associations and preach in evangelical churches. But this is “wolf in sheep’s clothing” teaching.

Seventh, against charges of heresy, they argue for 'tolerance' and act like wounded lambs. This was the same tactic used by them Modernists in the late 19th and early 20th century. The modernists, once they had seized control of Protestant institutions, then used their power to persecute, silence and throw out Bible believing leaders who opposed them. 'Tolerance' was just a tactic to gain an advantage. The same will probably happen if we don't act now.

Eighth, they promote the 'emerging church' and postmodernism as a platform for unity across denominational and sectarian boundaries. While we should promote unity amongst true Christians, the 'emerging church' is not the correct platform to do so.

Ninth, when an 'emerging church' leader is attacked on any specific point of heresy, then they tend to just disclaim that person as 'not one of them' or part of a different faction. Reality is that the movement is fragmented in belief and its ideology promotes that fragmentation. That is why it is hard to argue with because everyone believes something different.

Tenth, 'emerging church' leaders pose as 'youth experts', offering to help pastors and denominational leaders to relate to the youth. Since they assume the church going youth have already swallowed the lies of post-modernism, they expect their pastors to follow them into error in order to reach them. Actually, a shepherd is supposed to lead the sheep and rescue and defend them from wolves - not follow the sheep who are following wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing. Pastors need to understand postmodernism like a doctor studies disease.

HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND TO THE EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT?

* We must fight the 'emergent church' heresy with all the strength we have. The sooner people are warned about this emerging threat, the more easily they can be saved from it. If we don't fight now, we will have to fight later and then it will be harder to win. This is a priority we cannot ignore. We must be prepared to sacrifice our popularity, our positions, our money, our time, our friendships, and our ministry relationships to fight this uncompromisingly.

* We must fight not only intellectually, but also to ensure that only Bible believing (non-emergent) leaders are appointed to positions of authority in Christian institutions. That means for example, making it a criterion when
you call a new pastor to your church, or choose presenters for a Christian radio programme or who you support in choosing the next leader of a Christian organisation. Christian organisational leaders need to screen their new workers for 'emerging church'/post-modern beliefs.

* We need to be kind and gentle with pastors and leaders who have been recently influenced by the movement, while discussing and giving them resources to help explain its errors. Many have joined it because they are
disillusioned with contemporary Christianity and see it as a more hopeful alternative. It will be doubly painful to be disillusioned twice, first by contemporary Christianity and now by the 'emerging church' movement. We shouldn't add to the pain by being brutal with our words.

* We must encourage a return to the alternative historic Orthodox Biblical Christianity - a study of respected teachers, creeds, confessions statements of faith interpretation the Bible that have stood the test of time to serve
as a balance with new writers. While we must be open to the Holy Spirit shedding some new light on the Word of God, orthodox Biblical movements generally affirm and re-state old accepted truths more than they introduce new ones.

* We should warn Christian bookshops, magazines, churches, publishing houses and denominations and radio stations against 'emerging church' false teachers like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell and ask them not to stock their books, publish their articles or give them a platform at conferences. 2 John v11 explains why assisting heretics is sharing in their work.

* We need to also go onto the offensive against the Postmodernist worldview of which the 'emerging church' is an accommodation, and promote instead the alternative of a Christian worldview. In other words, we must explain how true Christianity applies to all of life and how it differs from other ideologies in its answers to the questions of life.

* Most of the power in Christian institutions is currently in the hands of people who are over 45 years old. Most of these people do not understand the ideology of Post-modernism, which the youth are embracing. They may have biblical views. They may see a few problems, but they don't understand the seriousness of the threat. Most don't like conflict amongst Christians and want to be nice to everyone. They may view conflict as unnecessary trouble-making. We must educate them about the threat, otherwise, in twenty year’s time, most of the orthodox evangelical institutions will be taken over by postmodernists/ 'emerging church'. They must choose their successors from those who stay with Biblical Christianity and they must re-affirm Biblical Christianity to their followers particularly on points such as the clarity of scripture where it differs from post-modernism.

* We can cautiously consider legitimate ways of adapting cultural elements of our church and organisational methods to attract post-modern youth, while being careful not to compromise the gospel and Christian ethics.

* We must have hope and confidence that ultimately, the 'emerging church movement' and its mother, 'postmodernism', will eventually go out of fashion just like Modernism, Marxism, Fascism and their attempts to synchretise with Christianity. Already Postmodernism is losing support amongst the worlds top intellectuals and that means it is only a matter of time before it loses support in popular culture. That however, could take a few decades. Until then, we must fight to stop it corrupting Christianity and present a Biblical Christian alternative.

* Please print out this document and give it to your pastor or Christian organisational leader.

MORE INFORMATION

* The main group promoting the emerging church in South Africa is http://www.futurechurch.co.za/
* Examples of unbiblical quotations from principal Emerging Church leaders:
- Brian McClaren http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
- Rob Bell http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2007/03/rob-bells-unbiblical-views.html
http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/freswick_casey_feb06_v56_n02.htm
- Steve Chalke http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Message-Jesus-Steve-Chalke/dp/customer-reviews/0310248825
* A chart comparing post-modernism to other worldviews:
http://www.summit.org/resources/worldview_chart/#wv-chart-expl
* Overview of movement (mostly in favour but including some balancing criticism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* A list of some key leaders opposing the emerging church movement http://www.apologeticsindex.org/296-emerging-church-opponents
* Helpful web sites against the Emerging Church are:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Emerging-Church/
http://www.honeyridge.co.za/node/148
http://postbiblical.info/
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
http://www.9marks.org/